Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Finance Bill and Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Finance Bill and the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill:—

Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading: Finance Bill

1.—(1) The proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading of the Finance Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.

(2) Any stage of the Finance Bill may be proceeded with at the conclusion of the preceding stage, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between stages of a Bill brought in on Ways and Means resolutions.

(3) On completion of Second Reading of the Finance Bill any Question necessary for the House immediately to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House shall be put forthwith.

(4) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee on the Finance Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(5) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Finance Bill are taken.

(6) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Lords Amendments: Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill

2. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

3.—(1)This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings on the Finance Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion at this day's sitting in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others) —

(a)any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b)any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c)the Question on any Amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d)any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3)Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

4.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings on the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion at this day's sitting in accordance with paragraph 2.

(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put


forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment made by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) if Mr. Speaker is satisfied that any remaining Lords Amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue such as is required to be authorised by resolution of the House under Standing Order No. 47 (Certain proceedings relating to public money) and that the charge has not been so authorised, he shall in accordance with Standing Order No. 76(3) (Lords Amendments deemed to be disagreed to) declare he is so satisfied and shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment;
(c) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i)put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii)put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii)put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv)put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(d) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Dilatory Motions

5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings at this day's sitting on either of the Bills to which this Order applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time

6.—(1) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings at this day's sitting on both of the Bills to which this Order applies.

(2) If the proceedings on the Motion for this Order were interrupted, or the proceedings on the Finance Bill are interrupted, under paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 11 (Questions of an urgent character which relate to matters of public importance etc.), the time at which proceedings on that Bill would otherwise be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be extended by a period equal to the duration of the interruption.

(3) If the proceedings of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill are interrupted under paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 11, the time at which proceedings on that Bill would otherwise be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 2 shall be extended by a period equal to the duration of the interruption.

Supplemental orders

7. (1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister

of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.

(2) If at this day's sitting the House is adjourned, or if this day's sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

8. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order.

Recommittal

9.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit either of the Bills to which this Order applies (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

10. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill.

11. The Proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

12. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

13.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

14. In this Order "the proceedings", in relation to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill includes proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.

The timetable motion provides for debates on the Finance Bill to be concluded within four hours from now. We have already had three full days of debate. Indeed, we finished early on Tuesday night. Four hours should give sufficient further time for us to demolish the Opposition's criticisms of the Budget and to demonstrate, yet again, that Labour is a party with a fundamental belief in high


taxation for everyone. It will also enable the House to get on the statute book some of the key points of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget.

The motion also provides for the consideration of Lords amendments to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill within one hour immediately following the proceedings on the Finance Bill. Again, I believe that that arrangement is right for the country. Just as with the Bill relating to England and Wales, the Scottish Bill is already widely welcomed by further and higher education institutions. It will continue the Government's reforms in further and higher education, which have brought about a vigorous expansion in the places in higher education being taken up by our young people.

We heard yesterday from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) the predictable dirge about the use of the guillotine. I wholly reject his charge that we are ending this Session with our legislative programme in disorder. The truth is quite the opposite, as the facts show. The hon. Gentleman is never very good with facts, but I shall give them to him. We are, in fact, ending this Session as we began it, with our legislative programme under firm control and in excellent order. It is yet another example of good, effective and successful Government.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: I was about to give the facts, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Beith: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to give the philosophy behind the facts. If, as he claims, the Government's legislative programme is in good order, is not that because he applied guillotines to so many Bills, as he is now doing again? Are there any circumstances in which he thinks it inappropriate to put a timetable on a Bill from the beginning and without consultation?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already made it clear—and it is a personal view—that I believe it right to timetable Bills. I have said that the way in which that is done is still a matter for discussion. The principle of timetabling is good because it enables us to have effective consideration of legislation. No one could argue that the way in which we conducted our practices on some Bills in the past, where there has been filibustering, has been effective in ensuring proper scrutiny. I am glad that the Select Committee under my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has followed that through.
I shall explain how that has worked in this Session. The Gracious Speech mentioned 12 Bills. I hope that, by the conclusion of business on Monday, 21 Government Bills will have been enacted. Very few Bills will not reach the statute book. If the Asylum Bill is one of those, it will be because the opposition parties have opposed various parts of that important piece of legislation, which I believe the country wants on the statute book.

Mr. John Greenway: I think that my right hon. Friend is interrupting what I was about to ask him. He is very perceptive. Does he agree that whatever the result of the general election—and we are buoyant by the prospect of another Conservative victory—and whichever Government come to the House, the Asylum Bill will have to be one of the first measures to be reintroduced?

Mr. MacGregor: Mind reading is one of my hobbies, but my skill does not extend to interrupting something that my hon. Friend had not yet said. I agree with him about the importance of having the Asylum Bill on the statute book. If that cannot be by Monday, I trust that it will be done soon thereafter. I hope that at least 21 Government Bills and a number of private Members' Bills will be enacted by the close of business on Monday. The Government are full of new ideas, and our first programme in the new Parliament will include many measures to build on our achievements since 1979.
There are two main reasons why we must proceed with speed, so that the Finance Bill receives Royal Assent before the House rises. First, the Bill contains a number of measures that it is essential to have in place on the statute book. The changes in excise duties contained in resolutions that the House approved last night must be enacted in a Finance Bill, otherwise the extra tax collected would have to be repaid.
The Finance Bill provides also for the renewal of income tax and for the continuation of tax relief on mortgage interest, which are also essential. If the powers to collect income tax are not renewed by 5 May, no income tax could be collected for the financial year ahead. — [Laughter.] That might be attractive to some of my hon. Friends and to many in the country. We have been working to ensure throughout our period of government that taxpayers pay less income tax, but I do not imagine that any right hon. or hon. Member expects no income tax at all to be collected. Also, mortgage payers would not thank us if we could not continue interest relief.
The Finance Bill makes provision for value added tax monthly payments on account, to put beyond doubt the legal position on VAT monthly returns that are currently subject to judicial review.
The Finance Bill provides also for the introduction of the new lower rate of income tax of 20p for the first £2,000 of taxable income, and for the halving of car tax—both highly desirable measures that the country wants implemented and operating as soon as possible.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Four weeks today.

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the whole country notes that—as I understand last night's vote and that which we expect today—the Opposition oppose the 20p reduced income tax band. That will be an important issue during the forthcoming election.

Mr. Grocott: The Leader of the House must be disappointed with the public's reception of the Budget, as shown by opinion polls and City reaction.

Mr. MacGregor: Not at all. Like all good things, people will come to appreciate the Budget's provisions better the more that they study them.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I can give my hon. Friend some interesting information. In a by-election in my constituency yesterday, the Conservative candidate came top of the poll, 400 votes ahead of the runner up, and neither Labour nor the Liberals bothered to contest the seat.

Mr. MacGregor: The longer that we debate the Finance Bill and our tax and expenditure policies, the more support we will gain during the general election campaign.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: If a 20p tax band is such a good idea, why did the right hon. and learrned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), as Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer, get rid of it in 1980? Is it not the case that the Government are reintroducing it as a bribe? The electorate understand that a 20p tax band is being reintroduced just prior to a general election to give the impression that the Tories are helping them out. If that tax band had been any good, we would have had it for the past 11 years.

Mr. MacGregor: At the beginning of this Government's first term, we faced a need to reduce a truly horrendous public sector borrowing requirement. I will make very clear later in my speech the relative position of the PSBR now. Today, the position is wholly different. The 20p band continues our policy of bringing down direct tax rates and of achieving the long-term target of a basic rate of income tax of 20p in the pound. The reference by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to a bribe is very revealing of Labour's philosophy. The suggestion that one can bribe people by enabling them to keep more of their earnings demonstrates Labour's thinking, which is, "We can spend your money better than you." That is why Labour is a party of high taxation, and why it will never understand that the electorate do not believe that they can be bribed by being allowed to keep more of their own money.
The debate of the past three days has clearly shown how wide of the mark are Labour's criticisms of the Budget. The Opposition attempt to give the impression that because the Budget contains nothing specific about capital spending and training, nothing is being done about them, but they know very well that under the present system—which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has indicated will be changed anyway—decisions on capital expenditure and training for the year ahead were announced earlier. It is not the case that those decisions—and they are substantial—are announced in a Budget.
We plan capital expenditure of about £30 billion next year, on top of steadily increasing capital programmes. We will take no lessons from the Opposition on capital expenditure. We have steadily increased it, whereas Labour cut that expenditure during its period in office.
Since 1988, capital spending on roads and transport increased by more than one third. British Rail's capital expenditure has nearly doubled, and London Transport's has trebled. Expenditure on training is in real terms two and a half times more than when we took office, which is additional to the high levels of training expenditure undertaken by industry, totalling some £20 billion. Next year's public expenditure programmes include a substantial proportion devoted to capital spending.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Lancastrians have not forgotten that the last Labour Government cut all hospital and school building in the county. It has been catching up steadily under a Conservative Government, but Lancastrians will not forget in a hurry the policies of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right. We plan for the country as a whole a programme of more than 600 new hospital buildings. Schools capital expenditure has risen by 35 per cent. in the last two years. It is nonsense for Labour to claim that the PSBR is being devoted to income tax cuts. One can split the expenditure programme whichever way one likes.
Labour claims also that we are doing nothing for business and investment—ignoring the fact that commerce and manufacturing industry are encouraged to invest by the right economic framework, confidence in Government policies and long-term strategy, low corporation tax and good profitability. Those are the policies which ensure a good level of business investment.
We have provided all these and that is why we have seen an unparalleled investment boom. Investment in plant and machinery increased by almost 50 per cent. from 1979 to 1991 and business investment increased by almost 45 per cent. from 1986 to 1989, the fastest three-year growth since the war. Business investment in 1992 is forecast to be a third higher than in 1979. There is substantial business investment and it has been brought about by the policies that we have created.
The Labour party has ignored the fact that about £6 billion in cash flow is coming into business as a result of interest rate reductions over the past 18 months. There is a further £1 billion as a result of last year's corporation tax reduction. There is also a significant improvement in business cash flow as a result of action already taken. That is why it is right to claim that the Budget, as a Budget for business, adds to what has already been done.
The Labour party does not understand that business men's confidence to press the button to implement new investment plans depends in part on their sales forecasts. Labour behaves as if there is something deeply wrong in giving a modest boost to consumer expenditure through the tax cuts that we propose. There is no black-and-white choice between encouraging investment and encouraging sales. It is not either/or. We need a balance.
I shall use the example of the motor industry, an industry in which there is no shortage of capital investment. Indeed, over recent years it has been massive. That is why there has been a greatly improved export record over the past few years. However, the industry needs a boost to its sales. The halving of the car tax will help business and business investment, not the reverse.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I shall illustrate the public's reaction to the Budget and in so doing take up some of my right hon. Friend's remarks. Yesterday, there was a by-election in my constituency, one ninth of which was involved. In the ward there is almost exactly a 50–50 split between what might be described as private property and the public sector property. We, the Conservative party, took 50 per cent. of the vote and won the seat comfortably. Councillor Tim Bowler will be a great addition to the city council. That was the public's verdict yesterday in my Nottingham constituency.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend's return to the House will be of great benefit to his constituents, as his presence has been in the past.
The result of the by-election in Nottingham illustrates that the Labour party's approach—that a tax cut does nothing to help the economy or to help business confidence—reflects a complete misunderstanding of business investment. It is important to have increased sales and that was illustrated recently in the results of a survey that was undertaken by Goldman Sachs International Ltd. The likelihood is that between £2·5 billion and £3 billion of potential extra spending power will come into the economy between the end of December 1991 and April of this year as a result of the reduction in mortgage interest


rates. The fact that about 40 per cent. of mortgages are based on annual interest rate adjustments will have a considerable impact and the adjustments are taking place now. As a result of the measures that we have taken, there has been a considerable boost to business confidence within the economy.
Because of our policies, the results of many surveys, including that of the Anglo-German chamber of commerce, which is composed mainly of German companies that are investing in the United Kingdom and of those who have invested in the United Kingdom—inward investors—demonstrate that investors believe that the United Kingdom is an attractive place in which to do business. That is the result of the Government's policies. That is also the answer to the Labour party's charge that the Budget is not one for business and that we have not been pursuing policies that are attractive to business.
The Confederation of British Industry and many other organisations have supported the approach that we have taken throughout. I noted the other day the result of a survey of the top 200 companies that was undertaken by James Capel and Co. When the companies were asked whether they thought that a Labour victory would be good or bad for the economy, 86 per cent. said that it would be bad. That is the reaction and judgment of business on the alternative policies that will be put to the country in the general election.
Criticisms about the public sector borrowing requirement come ill from the Labour party when we recall both its record in government and its published spending commitments. It is worth reminding the country, as we shall be doing constantly, that when the last Labour Government were in office, the equivalent PSBR as a proportion of gross domestic product—this is an average —was £40 billion. In the Labour Government's worst year it was the equivalent of £55 billion. Our PSBR still remains, as a proportion of GDP, the lowest within the European Community, apart from that of Luxembourg. That is why we can rightly claim to be the party which has pursued sound finances.
We have heard little from the Labour party about how well the Budget is targeted on other groups, such as the small business group in which I take a particular interest. I regret that it has not been possible to include some of the very welcome measures in the Finance Bill that were proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement. We shall certainly be including them in legislation as soon as we return after the election.
The targeting on pensioners helps to increase spending and is important for pensioners on income support who, from October, will see an increase in their incomes of at least £5·70 a week. In some instances, it will be as much as £10·70.
I come to the crucial element of the debate, which is the shrillness of the Opposition's reaction to the proposed 20p rate for the first £2,000 of taxable income. The reaction—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. There is a disturbance coming from the Opposition Front Bench, but the debate has hardly been about the guillotine motion since it began; it has been wider than that. I have been rather tolerant this morning.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. To judge from the interventions in my speech, the House wants to debate the motion.
The Opposition's reaction to the 20p proposal reveals them in their true colours. The proposal is worth £100 a year to almost 21 million taxpayers. It is skilfully targeted to give the most assistance proportionately to the lower paid. Seventy five per cent. of the benefit will go to those on below average earnings. The marginal tax rate will be reduced for nearly 4 million taxpayers.

Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman has made a rather important point. He said that 75 per cent. of the benefit will go to people on below average earnings. Is that now the Government's definition of the lower paid?

Mr. MacGregor: No, because I was talking about skilful targeting to those on lower incomes. I was simply making a point about what the impact of the measure would be.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend think that the casual disregard of £100 is because it would not even pay for the first course of the gala dinner in Park lane?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes his point.
It was interesting that the Opposition got into a muddle in their reaction to the 20p proposal, as they do on every other tax matter. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) described it as a good idea. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said that he would support it. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was quoted in the Liverpool Daily Post as saying:
There may be a way we can accept this tax band because we believe the lower paid pay too much tax already.
As always, the Labour party got into a muddle and tried to retreat. In truth, it believes in and stands for higher taxes, not only for those on higher incomes, but for those on middle and lower incomes. That is demonstrated by its attitude to the 20p proposal and by everything that it says about taxes generally.
The country will be able to judge from the way in which Opposition Members vote whether the Labour party is for or against lower taxes, for or against directing the benefit of tax cuts to the least well off and for or against an economy that is competitive with other countries. We Conservatives know that the role of government is to get economic fundamentals right, to keep them right, to create conditions for growth and opportunities for enterprise and to provide scope for freedom of choice. As the Finance Bill demonstrates, we know that the money that Governments spend comes from taxpayers. We believe it right to leave people with as much of their own money to spend as is possible.
We believe in reducing taxes, increasing incentives and enhancing opportunities for all our people. The Labour party does not believe in any of those things. It will be demonstrating that again today by voting against our proposals. The country will soon judge. I have no doubt that its verdict will be the same as it has been for the last 13 years.

Dr. John Cunningham: I hope that I do not embarrass you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I say that we think we heard a note of irony in your voice when you reminded us what the debate is about. I shall return to that point in a moment, but I begin by saying genuinely to the


Leader of the House that, in so far as he has been involved in work on House of Commons affairs, he has been a good Leader. I thank him for his courtesy to me personally in the way that we have tried to work together to improve matters in the House of Commons—but there, I am afraid, the felicitations must end.
As you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, with a note of irony in your voice, when you reminded us of the nature of the debate and why we are here, the reason why we are here this morning is that the Leader of the House is asking us to agree to the guillotining of three Bills. In round numbers, that means that in this Parliament the Government, with their large majority, will have guillotined about 40 measures—more than twice the number of guillotines used by the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979, when we did not even have a majority in the House of Commons.
The Government will finish as they began—unable to persuade people by argument and debate, but determined to railroad their ideas through Parliament regardless. At least two or three Conservative Members are in the Chamber today who, in the past, had the courage and conviction to stand up and oppose in principle the guillotining of Bills and also to vote against measures such as the poll tax when that, too, was guillotined. The Government have never learnt from their mistakes throughout this Parliament in the way that they have approached the business of the House.
This morning's proceedings are unprecedented. The Budget debate has been curtailed and we face the savage guillotining of the Finance Bill through all its stages in a few hours today. No Government of any persuasion, however great their difficulties, ever conducted proceedings on the Finance Bill and the Budget in such a way. The right hon. Gentleman leaves this Parliament with an unenviable record in that regard, as well as in some others, to which I shall turn later.
The Leader of the House says that we have to have a Finance Bill. He is absolutely right. Despite what he said yesterday, we recognised that need from the outset—but we did not have to have a Finance Bill in these circumstances and we did not have to have a Budget debate in these circumstances. We could have had the Budget a week earlier or we could have had the general election a week later. Either way, the Government simply messed it up.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer—he was here a few moments ago, but has vanished again, no doubt having put on his Vatman cape—and the Prime Minister were responsible for fixing these dates and this timetable. What we now see clearly is that they made a complete mess of fixing the dates. The result is the guillotining of the Finance Bill today.
We see a flight from responsibility by the Government. They deny that the recession has anything to do with their policies. They deny that homelessness has anything to do with their policies—it is the fault of the homeless. Unemployment is the fault of people who do not have jobs. The recession is the fault of the Americans. The Government accept no responsibility for anything. Even after 13 years in office, with large parliamentary majorities and advantageous world circumstances, and with oil

revenues in excess of £100 million, the Government leave the nation's affairs in a shambles. They leave Parliament in a shambles, too.
The Finance Bill is the most important measure to be guillotined this morning, but the Education (Schools) Bill is also guillotined, as is the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, even though we have expressed our acceptance of the Bill in its present form. I assume that the Leader of the House is guillotining it because he is concerned about the Scottish Nationalists, but as they are not here I am not sure what he is worried about. He is guillotining that Bill without the Labour party opposing it.
The Leader of the House said that the Government's conduct of the final aspects of their business was orderly, so whatever happened to the Asylum Bill? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman was not implying, or trying to convince the House, that the Asylum Bill is not here because we oppose it. The truth of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman was offered a compromise on that Bill by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) but the Government rejected it. The real reason why the Asylum Bill is not in the House now is because the Government have signally failed to convince the other place—a combination of Tory peers, Cross Benchers and others—that it should be allowed through. That is why the Asylum Bill has not come back from the other place—it has nothing to do with obstacles in the House of Commons and it is quite out of order to suggest anything to the contrary.
The reality is that the Government are staggering through these last few days of Parliament, desperate to get out of here before even their last act of folly—their Budget —is rumbled. They have even missed the boat on that. Their timetable has gone wrong on that, too. As reactions from the City and from people around the country show, the Budget has had a big thumbs down. The great launch for the Tory campaign has stalled. The rocket motor has fizzled out like a damp squib. How can any Conservative Member or anyone else in the forthcoming campaign believe that the person on £70 a week, whom the Chancellor told us he had in mind when he made his tax changes, will be delighted by the proposals? The tax reduction offered to that taxpayer is just under 19p per week. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said, that is equivalent to the price of a box of matches. Anyone who thinks either that that will motivate voters to support his discredited Government or that it will electrify the economy must be living in cloud cuckoo land.

Mr. Den Dover: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: In a moment.
The truth is that even before my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor unveils his alternative budget next week, our own proposals on child benefit, a minimum wage and attendant policies will do far more for the low paid than anything in this Budget.

Mr. Dover: If the Labour party is voting against the lower band of income tax, will it consider most carefully the fact that the main reason for it is to give every possible incentive to the unemployed to get into work? Due to the poverty trap, there has been no incentive for them to take low-paid jobs. Is this not the best way to bring about a fall in unemployment?

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman must be absolutely confused about the position of people who are out of work. They are out of work as a result of the Government's policies. If he thinks that 19p per week is all that is stopping people who are out of work from getting jobs, he is fundamentally mistaken. I can tell him from my experience throughout the country, and in particular from my experience in my own constituency of Copeland, that what he says is incorrect. There are 3,000 people out of work in Copeland. If I include the unemployment in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), there are between 6,000 and 7,000 people out of work in west Cumbria. An extra 19p a week will do nothing to create additional employment in west Cumbria. Indeed, a further unemployment calamity is coming to west Cumbria due to the running down of the nuclear industry's construction programme and a further 3,000 people will lose their jobs in my constituency. The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) knows the building and construction industry. He knows that it is in a calamitous state across the country. Nothing in the Budget—certainly not the 19p reduction for an employed person earning £70 per week—will resolve the problems. The hon. Gentleman knows that.

Sir Teddy Taylor: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: I have not given way, but as the hon. Gentleman has been so courteous, I will do so now.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the poor people of Cumbria that a future Labour Government would take a positive attitude to the nuclear industry and the construction thereof?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes. I did not want to be diverted to the subject of nuclear power, but, as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned it, I can say that it is important in my constituency, where it employs 14,000 people directly. The Government took office 13 years ago, full of bold, brave things to say about nuclear power, but what is their record? They started but did not finish even one nuclear power station in 13 years.

Mr. Beith: Thank goodness.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman says, "Thank goodness." He is entitled to his point of view, but for the Government to talk as though they are the saviours of the nuclear industry is one of the long-running myths of this and previous Parliaments. If we take into account the privatisation of the electricity industry—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying too far by talking about privatisation measures. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to return to the motion on the allocation of time.

Dr. Cunningham: That shows that I should not have been tempted to allow an intervention by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). However, to conclude the point, the privatisation of the electricity industry above all wrecked the prospects of the industry to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That was another of the Government's terrible mistakes.
I deal again with the reason for the guillotine as you rightly reminded me to do, Madam Deputy Speaker. The motion is intended to force through the Budget proposals with the claim that somehow at the 59th second of the 59th

minute of the 23rd hour, as the Government stagger out of office, they have suddenly become concerned about lower-paid people. That is absolutely bogus. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said, in one of their first Acts the Government abolished the lower rate. Now, 12 years later—just before a general election—they are reintroducing it.
What has happened in the intervening decade? What has happened since Conservative Members voted to freeze child benefit? Were they thinking about low-income families then? Of course they were not. What happened when they trooped through the Lobbies to impose the poll tax on low-income families? Where was their concern for the low paid then? What were they thinking when they agreed to legislation that, for the reasons that we advanced, no political party in any other democracy would support? When they agreed to introduce the poll tax, what did they think about sending poll tax bills to people who had no income? That is the Government's record on taxation—to say nothing of the 2·5 per cent. increase in VAT in the last year's Budget to buy off poll tax anger.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I thought that we had come to hear about the guillotine.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman did not come here for that purpose—he knows that and so do we.
As I was saying, that is the Government's record, not to mention imposing the highest tax burden in history on all of us as they leave after 13 uninterrupted years in office. The Government have got the Budget wrong, and they have got it wrong for 13 years. If they have not got it right in 13 years, they never will.
That is what people think. At the end of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) will remind hon. Members of the comments of City analysts on the Budget. They said that it was a flop and gave it the thumbs down. One Thatcherite supporter in the City gave it one out of 10. It was remarkable to sit here while the Chancellor introduced the Budget and to observe the look and demeanour of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). She looked absolutely livid throughout the whole performance.
I asked the Leader of the House yesterday about the Conservative campaign guide for the coming election. I do not know whether Conservative Members have seen it, but if they would like to come to my office afterwards, they can have a copy. The guide is already out of date because it contains figures that are nonsensical. It talks about a PSBR of £10·5 billion, which is already 50 per cent. too low. It says nothing about the PSBR of £28 billion for the coming financial year or one of £32 billion for the year after that.
What happened to sound money? What happened to balanced Budgets? What about the chairman of the Conservative party who said that large borrowing was simply deferred taxation, a burden for future generations? All those arguments have gone out of the window—whoof!—because there is a general election on the way. That is what the Budget is all about, and that is why the Government have made such a reckless economic misjudgment. As my hon. Friends have said, and as the polls show today, the Budget was also a huge political misjudgment. People do not want it. It means nothing to them in the face of higher tax bills, higher poll tax bills,


higher charges for electricity, for gas and for water, and higher petrol prices. Those higher prices will override any benefits to low-income families which might have resulted from these policies.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: I will give way in a moment.
The Budget will not wash. Even the people who are struggling, as I know from my constituency experience —who are faced with schools without sufficient text books or learning materials for their children, and with the appalling circumstances which led to the tragic death of Georgina Norris—would rather have borrowing for investment, to build for the future. They know that investment for the future is the best way to get a better deal for themselves and their families, rather than a tax bribe a few weeks before a general election.

Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman is attacking the Government for their imprudent level of borrowing. Will he let us into the secret of the shadow Budget to be published tomorrow? Will the level of borrowing under a Labour Government be lower or higher than that which we propose?

Dr. Cunningham: I cannot let the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) in on the secret of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget to be revealed tomorrow because it will be revealed next week. All will be revealed. My right hon. and learned Friend made it clear in the Chamber that we shall have to work within the circumstances that we inherit. [Interruption] Hon. Members say that we shall have to stay with it. Of course, an incoming Labour Government—and that is what we shall have—will have to work within the circumstances that they inherit. I suspect that, as in the past, the mess of the nation's finances will be even worse when we open the books and take a thorough look, but we shall have to deal with that. The hon. Member for Chichester must contain himself for a few days more. He will discover that my right hon. and learned Friend's alternative proposals are better not only for individuals but for Britain as a whole.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has just talked about capital spending in the national health service, with the implication that somehow or other Labour would do better. During the forthcoming election campaign, will he keep reminding the electorate that the Government have increased capital spending on hospitals by 76 per cent., compared with the 30 per cent. cut made by the Labour Government in that same capital spending?

Dr. Cunningham: Indeed, I am more than happy to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's challenge that we should debate the circumstances of the national health service during the election campaign. We know that people are deeply unhappy about the Government's policies and, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman says about expenditure, he and his right hon. Friends must explain why wards are continuing to close, why emergency beds are not available and why desperately ill children are turned away from hospitals. Why is that happening, if the Government's record on health is so wonderful? Why is the number of beds available for private patients who need urgent treatment increasing while the number of beds

available to NHS patients is declining? Why is that happening if the Government have made such a good job of their health service reforms?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we have substantially increased spending on the health service in real terms, by about 55 per cent. overall. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not enough."] Labour Members, say that that is not enough. How, then, do they explain what the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is clearly saying to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—that the Labour party would not be able to spend more on the health service and that, because of its policies on a national minimum wage, on pay beds and on prescription charges, it would substantially reduce the amount actually spent on patients within the health service?

Dr. Cunningham: We are right at the nub of the dispute between us. This is the choice which people face. They must choose whether the money that is still available, even in these desperately difficult financial circumstances—the mess that the Tory Government are leaving—should be spent on tax cuts or on investments. That is the clear choice which we shall put to the people and we are happy to put it in those clear terms. I am quietly confident that people will see the difference and make the choice—and that choice will be for Labour. The evidence emerges again and again from the debate.

Mr. Roger Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how much the Labour party, in a quite revolting fashion, has spent on advertising which exploits the death of a child?

Dr. Cunningham: The tragedy of Georgina Norris, who was twice taken to hospital to have an operation and twice sent home, is appalling. It is a stain on a civilised society that that child should have died in those circumstances.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman does not know what the circumstances were.

Dr. Cunningham: I know very well what the circumstances were, and we stand by what we have said —the child's parents wanted the nation's attention drawn to what happened to their little girl as a result of the Government's mismanagement of the national health service. For the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) to suggest otherwise is a deliberate attempt to mislead the House and the country. I have all the correspondence here and he is welcome to see it all if he wishes.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not allow further discussion on an individual case. We are discussing principles.

Dr. Cunningham: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker —I might have known that that was the kind of intervention that the hon. Member for Thanet, North would make.
On this penultimate day of our deliberations, the Government are desperate to get their fag-ends of legislation through—desperate to get their bribes on to the statute book—so they are guillotining our procedure. They have used the guillotine a record number of times. The Leader of the House smiles. I do not think that he should smile, because, as well as being fed up with the


Government's economic and social policy failures the people are fed up with the abuse of Parliament which has been a recurring feature of the Government's term of office. The Government are concluding their term of office with another abuse of Parliament—and that, too, will count against them in the ballot box on 9 April.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The debate has ranged rather widely, but its subject is rather narrow— whether it is wiser for us to carry on discussing the Finance Bill in detail for a week or to rush on with the election now. The evidence so far suggests that it would have been better for us to go on for another week on the Finance Bill, because the signs for the election campaign appear rather depressing. There are a few exceptions—the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who has just spoken, is an obvious exception. I asked him a straight question and he gave me a straight answer. I hope that that will be a sign of what will happen in the campaign.
I asked the hon. Member for Copeland simply whether a Labour Government would be in favour of expanding a nuclear power programme and he said, "Yes." Presumably, that would be at the expense of coal-fired power stations. There are some such subjects on which it is good for politicians to give a straight answer. We know that some people feel that we should have more coal-fired power stations, while some favour gas-fired power stations and some want to cut the nuclear construction industry. At least we have had a straight answer from the hon. Member for Copeland. That is the sort of thing that we should have. There have been other signs that are not so good.
I understand that the Leader of the Opposition will be in Scotland today. We always regarded him as one of our staunch friends in the battle against all the nonsense about devolution—but now he seems to be one of its greatest supporters. It is tragic that, during the election campaign, nonsense will be talked by people who used proudly to support strong policies.
I shall ask the Leader of the House three questions. He will know that many Back Benchers have strong feelings on taxation issues and that they want to bring those feelings before the House when debating the Finance Bill. Yet it seems that, because of the guillotine, we shall be denied that opportunity. If, as we hope, the Conservative Government are re-elected, will there be an early opportunity to consider various tax anomalies?
I want to talk about simple things—for instance, beach huts, which, as my right hon. Friend probably knows, are important to the tourist industry. Suddenly, in the course of last year, beach huts became liable to VAT. That was done not by primary legislation but by some funny order that went to a Committee and it is obviously grossly discriminatory against the leisure and tourism industry. It is unfair and people are fed up about it.
We wondered how we could resolve the matter and we thought that we would be able to do so in the Finance Bill— but now we shall not be able to, which means that a great injustice to seaside areas, including Southend-on-Sea, will continue for another year unless we can have a detailed discussion on the subject.
Another great anomaly concerns the sale of secondhand furniture. It is ridiculous that, although almost every other industry pays VAT only on added value, sadly, on

second-hand furniture the gross amount must be paid. That is unfair to the industry, especially to the minority of people in it who are registered for VAT.
Another anomaly concerns people with working wives. If someone who is unemployed has a working wife, it will be almost impossible to get the mortgage paid, whereas if the wife is not working the mortgage can be paid. That is the kind of anomaly which we would like to discuss on the Finance Bill, but we shall not be given the opportunity. I simply ask my right hon. Friend whether, if we approve the motion, there will be another opportunity for considering detailed points about unfairness and distortion in tax legislation.
Secondly, I believe that it would be best if, in advance of the election, the Leader of the House introduced a simple motion outlining issues on which all the parties could agree. The motion could be discussed for about three hours and those issues could be left out of party politics. We could send them for local decision making.
That is not a silly idea. Hon. Members from all parties are aware that whenever there is a general election many people face total uncertainty. I shall cite one little example, which concerns the 2,500 children in Southend-on-Sea who attend grammar schools. There are arguments for and against grammar schools. I believe that if grammar schools are abolished, the people who will suffer will be able children from working-class areas. That is a political argument which is not relevant to the motion.
What is terrible is that, at this election, the next election and the election after that, the children, teachers and parents face uncertainty. They know that if one party wins, the grammar schools will be closed. If another party wins, the schools will stay open. Is it not possible to get some agreement between the parties before the election that there are some issues that we all agree should be left to the decision of local people? That is not an attack on the Labour party or on the Liberal Democrats: it is simply a suggestion that there must be some issues that we could agree to leave to local decision making.
I hope that the House will consider that possibility instead of using the motion. I hope that the House will decide to have short discussions with all the parties to see which issues we could leave to local decision making. We should not then have this terrible position of total uncertainty.
The Labour party used to believe in nationalisation and we had terrible problems. Industries did not know where they were, the employers did not know where they were and the workers—

Mr. Tony Banks: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says about local decision making. However, we have had 13 years of a Tory Government who have continually undermined local democracy, local accountability and local decision making. I should have liked to hear the hon. Gentleman's voice raised more sternly when local accountability was effectively being removed by the House.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am trying terribly hard not to be political. Even if the hon. Gentleman were absolutely accurate, even if the Conservative party were a crowd of rascals who wanted to interfere with everything—I do not think that they are, because some of them are very nice blokes—surely we should not go further.
Why does the hon. Gentleman think that it is right that a political party should say what kind of educational arrangements there should be in an area? Why not leave it to the local people? If they want to change, let them change.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will remember that when his party used to believe in nationalisation, which it does not believe in now, the same uncertainty applied to many jobs and many industries. Happily, the Labour party has moved away from that position and from many of its former policies. Would it not be sensible to have an arrangement whereby the parties could say, "Let the people decide locally and do not let the centre do so"?
As we shall not have a lengthy discussion of the Finance Bill, people like me—I call us a growing minority—who feel that all the parties, unfortunately, are being prevented from going ahead with more flexible economic policies because of their commitment to the exchange rate mechanism, are unable to ask the Government whether there is anything in the Bill which will remove the freedom of a Conservative, a Labour or a Liberal Democrat Government to withdraw from the ERM if they wish.
Only about 11 Conservative Members voted against the decision, but the Leader of the House will be aware that there has been a big change of opinion. The Times has changed greatly and now says that it is in favour of a free pound. That is wonderful. It is rather like getting the Church of England to say that it is opposed to fox hunting. It is a major change in opinion which has spread throughout the House and elsewhere. There is a growing belief that, if one tries to create an artificial price for anything, one simply creates distortions elsewhere.
We see the same problems arising under the EC agricultural policy, which we cannot discuss under the motion. As artificial prices are created, one has distortions—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman oblige me by relating what he says far more to the motion? He is now straying quite far away from it.

Sir Teddy Taylor: You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am trying to speak briefly.
I am simply trying to say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the motion, which cuts the time for discussion on the Finance Bill, that we should be allowed just a little more time to answer my simple, clear question, to which I want just a yes or no answer. Is there anything in the complicated Bill, which I have just seen, which removes the freedom of future Governments of any party to withdraw from the ERM if they wish to do so?
The Government have made it abundantly clear that they do not want to withdraw. Their commitment is firm. We simply want an opportunity, which I hope we may get, to be given the answer yes or no. My right hon. Friend may find that increasing numbers of people are moving towards my position. It would be terrible if we lost our freedom.
I hope that we shall be given positive answers to my three questions before we vote on the motion. I hope that, in the forthcoming election contest, all people from all parties will give clear, decisive and positive answers—as the hon. Member for Copeland did when I asked him a

simple and clear question about nuclear power. Let us hope that all the answers and questions will be as clear and decisive during the election.

Mr. Beith: rose—

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has had his chance already, because he was on television last night. He is a bit upset because I have got in before the Liberal Democrats. It is a great day and I am all in favour of it. The hon. Gentleman talked a bit about the guillotine a bit last night on television and he made it plain that the 20p band was going down like a lead balloon.
The atmosphere in the House today is different from the atmosphere on Tuesday. All the euphoria on the Conservative Benches has gone. I admit that when I heard the Chancellor say that he was introducing the 20p band for the first £2,000, I got out my little Labour party pocket book and I saw that the proposal was still there. Many things have been whittled away in Labour party policy reviews over the past few years, yet that policy still remains. I thought, "Here the Conservatives are, stealing our clothes. Ain't it smart?" I decided that it would not worry me, because I vote against Labour party policy from time to time.
Outside this place, within seconds, people were not taking the view that the 20p rate that many Conservative Members and some Labour Members took. I have another answer. I would have added another 5 per cent. to the 50 per cent. tax band and got the money back that way. That is still a threat if I get the job of Chancellor of the Exchequer, although I do not think that I am in line for it. It is a pointer.
The whole environment in which we debate today has changed completely. The Leader of the House talked about having to get the matter dealt with by 5 May. I must tell my hon. Friends who were not here before that if we do not get the Finance Bill on to the statute book by 5 May, all the taxes that should be collected will not be collected. If I can find a parliamentary procedural way in which to keep things going beyond 5 May, I shall be a bigger hero than Robin Hood. I am working on that one. Are any by-elections pending?

Mr. Beith: About 650.

Mr. Skinner: I am not so sure about mine. It is important that, after the initial bout of enthusiasm, the markets and the stock exchange took a completely different view. The problem that the Government must face in their dying days is not only the level of the public sector borrowing requirement at £28 billion, but the dramatic increase over 12 months.
The Leader of the House referred to the large PSBR between 1974 and 1979. He forgot to mention that part of it was due to the quadrupling of oil prices just before the Labour Government were elected. He forgot to mention that we inherited a bigger PSBR, in percentage terms, in 1974 than we left. I hope that all my hon. Friends remember that. When the Conservatives talk about the PSBR, we must realise that, in the middle of Labour's


period of office, the PSBR went up dramatically, but if we take into account the beginning and the end, the PSBR was less than the PSBR that we inherited.
Over the past 12 months, the PSBR has increased from £14 billion to £26 billion. The Government have now added another £2 billion. The City is saying that that is a dangerous and dramatic increase. That is its verdict. Those in the City are also bearing in mind the fact that the Government have picked up £100 billion-worth of North sea oil tax receipts and another £42 billion-worth of privatisation receipts. It is almost incredible that a Government who have had £142 billion extra should have managed to end up with a public sector deficit of £28 billion after 13 years in which they have had all that money from North sea oil. That is the difference between the 1980s and the 1970s.
We could have done a lot with that 2 billion quid. Only 4·75 million people are now engaged in the manufacturing industry—the lowest figure ever. This year, fewer people will be engaged in manufacturing than will be working in hotels and shops. I am not knocking people who work in hotels and shops, but we must remember that Britain imports about 50 per cent. of its food. We now have a net deficit on manufactured goods and there is no way in which we can allow the manufacturing capacity of Britain to continue as it is and pay for that imported food—let alone imported coal, imported oil and imported manufactured goods; it is impossible.
My hon. Friends on the Front Bench who will inherit the positions of those on the Treasury Bench in a month's time can forget about the £28 billion, because when they open the books they will find that matters are dramatically worse than that. That is the position and there are people out there in the City who know it. They are closer to reading the books than we are and they have friends on the Conservative Benches who tell them things—some of the dries in the Tory party who may not even be voting Tory at the election. I shall not name names, but a few of them are not looking forward to the Government getting back into power. They know, and their friends in the City know, that the situation is dramatically worse than it appears.
The £2 billion could have been used to boost manufacturing industry. It could have been used to boost housing. The state of housing in Britain after 13 years of Tory government is a crying shame. They called 1979 a bad year for Labour, yet in that year we built 80,000 public sector houses. My hon. Friends and I used to complain that that was not enough; we wanted 160,000 or 280,000, but we only got 80,000. Last year, only 8,000 public sector houses were built—8,000.
There are elderly people waiting for bungalows and other forms of accommodation. I am talking not just about London, although in parts of London homelessness is worse than it is anywhere else. I am also talking about places such as Bolsover, where the housing waiting list is longer now than when I was first elected in 1970. Every one of us knows that there is a crying need for houses.
The £2 billion could have been used to kick-start the housing economy and get rid of cardboard city, which is an utter scandal. We ought to have a party political broadcast showing people in door holes in the Strand, showing the piles of bricks at the London Brick Company and the 250,000 construction workers who do not have jobs. It does not take a Pythagoras to put those three things together and put roofs over people's heads.
Yet the Tories have the cheek to talk about putting £100 per annum into the pockets of Members of Parliament and Cabinet Ministers—because that is where the money will go, despite all the talk about its going only to the lower-paid. Let us get the facts straight: if people are on family credit, the money will be taken away from them pound for pound. The 3 million people who are unemployed will not get a penny piece out of this bribe of a Budget. We have housing squalor all around us and that is one of the things that the next Labour Government will have to sort out.
There is also the question of education. Some £4 billion needs to be spent on repairs to educational establishments, but nothing has been done in that regard either.
What else could we international socialists have done with the money? We could have used some of it to help pay off some of the debts of the third-world countries. We could have used a little of it to double the amount of money that we pay in overseas aid to some of those impoverished nations. Instead, the Government have chosen to line their own pockets and the pockets of their friends out there in the City.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is right that the £2 billion could have been well used in ways that would have helped low-paid people more than the £100 tax cut, which many of them will not get. But he has spent it several times. If he is to tackle education, investment and overseas aid and kick-start the economy, he will either have to borrow more or raise more revenue—and on that, those on the Labour Front Bench seem a little hesitant.

Mr. Skinner: I am merely giving examples of the way in the which the money could have been used. There are many options. I am not saying that we would need all the £2 billion to kick-start the housing economy. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that. We could start to do that by using some of the capital receipts that are held by the local authorities. Then we would not even need to start on the £2 billion. But as the hon. Gentleman is an economist, he has probably missed that point. It is early in the morning and I understand his problem. He is probably having to prop up Paddy Backdown or Captain Mainwaring or whatever they call him now. I understand his difficulties.
The public know—the voters know—that we could have done a lot with that money. We could have used it for child benefit or to help the old-age pensioners. We could use it to help implement the Elimination of Poverty in Retirement Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). All those issues need to be dealt with, but instead the Government said, "Let's introduce the 20p band. That'll embarrass the Labour party. It's in their little pocket book document." Somebody said to them, "Do you remember that we got rid of it in 1980?" The reply was, "Did we?" "Yes. It was the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East." "Oh, we're not bothered about him. He's going; he's on his way. Nobody will remember anyway. They'll not think about it on the Labour Benches."
The Government abolished the 20p tax band 1 I years ago. They introduced a poll tax to hammer the low paid. They cut social security benefits to hammer the low paid. They took away the death grant, the maternity grant, income support for 16 and 17-year-olds to hammer the low paid. Every time they walked into the House of Commons,


they did something else to hit the low paid. Then, a few weeks before a general election, some tin-pot ideologue said, "Let's introduce a 20p band and trap the Labour party." They might have done that momentarily, but the people out there understand it for what it is: it is a dirty, stinking Tory bribe, and they will pay the penalty for it at the general election.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The House has just heard a vintage performance from one of its favourite performers. I remember the day when I had to congratulate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on his maiden speech, and I did so with great sincerity. I forecast then that the House might hear from him occasionally in the future.[Laughter.] That prediction was absolutely right and I am sure that many Treasury forecasters would like to be able to emulate its accuracy.
I want to say a few words about the guillotine motion, you will be glad to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who has a nice line in affable invective, began his speech by paying a graceful tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. As I have served on a number of House of Commons Committees, I should like to associate myself with those words. For a very long time, the House has not had a Leader of the House who has devoted more time to its affairs. My right hon. Friend has been a particularly effective Leader of the House and I should love to see him in the job again after the general election, although he deserves promotion because of what he has achieved. The hon. Member for Copeland has been an excellent shadow Leader of the House and I wish him many happy years in that position.
We had the usual synthetic rhetoric about guillotine motions. I have never been an enthusiast for guillotine motions introduced by either party, as the hon. Member for Copeland knows, but this is one occasion on which I speak quite gladly in support of such a motion. I have one reservation: we have been given only four hours. In common with hon. Members on both sides of the House I have cancelled all my constituency engagements, so I could willingly have managed another two.
That reservation notwithstanding, I support the guillotine motion. The hon. Member for Copeland and other hon. Members know that all we are concerned about now is to tidy our business, make sure that the Finance Bill is passed, and get to the hustings. We are anxious to put the respective cases of the various parties. I am glad that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) is nodding his head. It is absolutely necessary. It is important that we get back to the country. Dissolution must take place on Monday. I, for one, am delighted to pursue a vigorous campaign in support of policies in which I have great faith.

Mr. Tony Banks: Unfortunately, that belief will not be shared by the electorate.

Mr. Cormack: It has not always been the case—the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is right.—but I am delighted that it now is.
The sooner we can conclude our business tidily and in good order, the better. My right hon. Friend the Leader of

the House has my full support. In spite of all that the hon. Member for Bolsover said a few moments ago with great eloquence, fervour, passion and sincerity, as the House has heard from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), yesterday these were two tests of public opinion in by-elections. They are real tests of real voters' feelings. In both cases there was a resounding victory for the Conservative party.
I have great faith in the policies that we will put forward in the general election. I want to get to the hustings as quickly as possible. The sooner we can finish our business today and wrap up the formalities on Monday, the better. The hon. Member for Copeland, for all his invective, knows that I am absolutely right and he, in his heart, agrees with every word.

Mr. A. J. Beith: We probably could have finished our business a couple of hours earlier if we had not had this timetable motion. We could have got on with dealing with the Finance Bill instead of spending several hours discussing whether we should discuss it and, if so, at what length. The fact that we have it illustrates the attitude which the otherwise genial and affable Leader of the House displays to the conduct of parliamentary business. One of his phrases should chill any support of democracy to the bone. He said to his hon. Friends, "If we do not have the Asylum Bill here today and do not have it on Monday, it is because Opposition parties are opposing some parts of the Bill." I thought that that was what we were here for—to find out what features of Bills will not work very well or were wrong in principle, and oppose them, make it difficult for the Government to get them through, and subject them to the most careful scrutiny. The fact that somebody has thought of engaging in that act—in some cases the people involved, horror of horrors, are actually Conservatives: in this case, Conservatives in another place—has caused the Government such apoplexy that they produce a reason not to proceed with the Bill.
When Governments are brought under pressure as at the end of a Session, it is normal for them to try to seek accommodation, rather as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), to see whether parties can agree on parts of the Bill that are important and should go ahead and it is in the general interest that they should go ahead. That process has gone on at the end of every Parliament I have served in. I have taken part in discussions with Ministers in previous Parliaments. It is funny that, all of a sudden, what the Liberal Democrats think becomes terribly important because the Government have realised that they cannot get their Bill through if we subject it to any scrutiny. Under previous Governments there were discussions designed to get maximum agreement between the parties on what could go ahead. That could have occurred in respect of these proceedings.
The timetable motion is particularly vicious. It is a "Heads I win, tails you lose" motion. It contains the provision that the proceedings
shall he brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
The object is quite simple. It is to escape the requirement that the House of Commons has traditionally had, that if a Government are to timetable a Bill there should be some


obstacle to their doing so. The obstacle is removed, because if we discuss the timetable motion all the time taken is lost from the discussion of the Bill.
I favour the timetabling of Bills. It is a sensible way to proceed. I was a member of the Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), to which the Leader of the House gave evidence. I was also a member of the Procedure Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). Both Committees recommended that there should be a timetable procedure for all Bills, but one based on a mechanism of consultation which ensures that the Government do not have total control over the amount of time available and the way in which it is divided, because if they have such control it is too easy for them.
There is nothing in the proceedings of the House to prevent the Government from coming forward with a motion such as this, saying that proceedings on the Finance Bill shall end five minutes after they have begun —indeed, five minutes after the order to discuss the timetable has began. There is absolutely nothing to prevent them from doing so, other than the possibility that there may be more than a handful of determined democrats on the Conservative side of the House.
Whenever such issues arise, and whenever we criticise timetable motions, the Leader of the House says how valuable the Bill is and that everybody agrees what a good Bill it is. That is not the point. Parliament must ensure that legislation on the statute book has been properly discussed and considered and is in a fit state of law to be put on the statute book. That will not happen if parliamentary procedures can be manipulated by the Government to suit their own convenience. That is what they are able to do with such a motion. That is why I oppose the motion, both the way in which it is being used and its form.
The Leader of the House has explained that the motion is necessary in order to consider the Finance Bill. It is the thinnest Finance Bill I have ever seen. I am accustomed to sitting on Finance Bill Committees and carrying around a half inch thick Finance Bill and endless notes on clauses. This is a slight document. We could have disposed of the Bill fairly quickly. Perhaps there could have been a case for the timetable motion which set aside reasonably short periods in which we could have dealt with Second Reading, the principal clauses of the Bill, enabled hon. Members to vote against one or two features of it, and end the proceedings in perfectly good time. The Leader of the House chose not to do that because he prefers the nice easy device of saying, "I decide how long it is. Nobody else has any say in the matter. If they dare to challenge the timetable, that will be taken off the time available to discuss the Bill."
That is a disgraceful way to run a Parliament. The next Parliament will not accept that treatment. That is because there will be plenty of Liberal Democrats who will be determined that Parliament should not be run in that way. I hope that members of other parties will feel that that is not the way to run Parliament and will take on board the recommendations of the Committees which have examined the matter in detail, and ensure that we do not consider business in this way in future.
What I say applies not only to the dying days of the Session, but to the way in which the Government handle business all the time. These proceedings are much like those that we have had on many other Bills. Far from being in a hurry to have an election, the Government were

putting the election off for as long as possible. They had all the time in the world. The Prime Minister did not want an election date. It used to be said that one of the Prime Minister's great advantages is being able to choose the date for the general election, but I get the impression that lately it has been one of the Prime Minister's main handicaps. He has had to go to bed each night wondering, "How can I put off having a general election? I wish that I did not have that awful decision." That has ceased to be one of his principal advantages. The Government are organising a closing-down sale: "Everything must go. Buy now before the end of today's business."

Mr. Greg Knight (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Get on with it.

Mr. Beith: The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) says, "Get on with it." The Government Whip is responsible for the timetable motion which ensures that, if any hon. Member actually wants to debate the details of the Bill, there is no provision to enable him to do so. Coming from the cesspit of the Government Whips office—[Interruption.] I am almost quoting the Prime Minister's words from the Dispatch Box yesterday. He said that Mr. Speaker seemed remarkably untainted by the years he spent in that evil institution. That is only the slightest of paraphrases. When hon. Members get into the Whips Office and into the office of the Leader of the House, they spend their lives devising ways of making sure that matters are not discussed and that there is no trouble. It is like a fire brigade equipped with a foam that is blown over the proceedings of Parliament with the sole objective of ensuring that the Government get their business through with as little proper consideration as possible.
We are considering a measure which has been introduced at the end of a Parliament and at the end of a term of office of a Government who chose to get rid of the same measure in the early years of their office. How can they come before the House today and say that we must hurry up and introduce a low tax rate band without any detailed discussion of its disadvantages because there are only a few minutes left in which to do it? They have had 12 years in which to explain why they were wrong in 1980. The Government have had 13 years during which, if a lower rate tax band would have been a great advantage, they could have allowed all the low-paid workers whom they believe will benefit from it to enjoy it—but no, it is simply part of the last minute closing down sale.
During the debate there has been much discussion about the public sector borrowing requirement and the need to resolve matters today in the light of what the future PSBR might be. Here there is a problem for the Labour party. The Government are spending £2 billion on the lower rate band. The Labour party and my party agree that that is not a good way to behave in the present circumstances and that the measure is not an effective way of helping the low paid. The Labour party could spend that £2 billion on education, on investment to kick-start the economy or on the national health service, but it could not spend it on all three. If it did, the effect on any one of them would not be significant.
It is our judgment that education needs an injection of about £2 billion to make up just some of the current deficiencies and shortcomings. It is our view that a great deal more than £2 billion needs to be injected in the way of investment in the economy to bring us quickly out of


recession. We believe that such an injection could bring us out of recession if it got the construction industry moving, but it is not possible to spend the same £2 billion three times over, so the Labour party is faced with the prospect of borrowing more—not allowing the Conservative Government to choose the borrowing requirement for it —or raising more revenue by increasing taxes, or possibly both.
The Labour party has an added problem. The Finance Bill and the Budget contain provisions for receipts from privatisation, which flow through every year and are part of the Government's assumptions about their borrowing requirement. I reckon that the Government will take about £1 billion per year from selling shares which they now hold in industries that they have already privatised. That is a significant sum of money.
Presumably, the Labour party will not have that money from selling shares. Presumably it would not sell shares in the already privatised industries. In that case, it would have not £2 billion but £1 billion to spend. It would save only £1 billion by not introducing the tax reduction and could use only that sum for spending purposes.
So the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has a great deal to think about between now and Tuesday if he is to find some way of making £1 billion stretch over all the problems that he has correctly identified, and on which I agree with him. The huge gap in the fabric of our society which we have to repair in the ways that I outlined last night, needs to be filled. It will not be filled by the Finance Bill. Those who would most benefit if we attended to creating jobs in the economy and getting out of recession would be the very low paid, who will benefit to only a limited extent from the key feature of the Finance Bill.
If we had time to discuss the lower rate band in detail today, to obtain evidence from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, or to consider the leader in today's Financial Times, we would see what an inadequately and ineffectively targeted measure it is. The Finance Bill is fairly pathetic. We could have disposed of it in a couple of hours, without the need for the guillotine motion.

Sir Peter Emery: I shall be brief. There is a procedural point, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), on which we must have an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We must have an assurance that this guillotine motion does not set a precedent. Following the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, there is a strong body of opinion in the House that we should move towards allocation of time for all legislation.
It is fairly unusual—although not an absolute precedent—for a Finance Bill to be guillotined. The Procedure Committee and the Select Committee on Sittings of the House have accepted that the allocation of time for legislation should ensure that all clauses are properly debated. As Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I stand absolutely by that premise. I hope that

my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will endorse that when he replies. This allocation of time motion does not ensure that all clauses will be properly debated.
The House understands—as, I believe even the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed accepts—that there is a desire to finish up the business, ensure that taxes can be collected and get on the hustings. That is a fair excuse and a good reason for the allocation of time motion. However, we must ensure, and I must ask my right hon. Friend to give an undertaking, that this motion will not be taken as a precedent for allocation of time motions in normal circumstances. It may be claimed that any allocation of time motion is not normal. If we are to move towards some allocation of time for all or most legislation at the start, we must ensure that it does not follow the precedent set today.
I congratulate the shadow Leader of the House, who has been almost revolutionary in moving towards reform of the procedures of the House. I am grateful for the support that he has given to the Procedure Committee. Of course, I have thanked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on more than one occasion for the excellent way in which he has attempted to ensure that our procedure is more reasonably and properly carried through.
However, it cannot be accepted that an allocation of time motion should form part of the time scale that it allocates to legislation. That is the danger of this motion, if it were copied in any other circumstances. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made that clear. It is possible that at the end of four hours we would not be able to debate any clause of the Finance Bill. That has not happened because, under the terms of the motion, the opening speeches and most of the other speeches have been allowed to go much wider than the allocation of time and to deal with the whole of the Finance Bill. Procedurally, that is not what an allocation of time motion ought to be about. Therefore, in procedural terms, such motions should not be emulated.

Mr. Beith: It could easily happen that a Government legitimately believe that an Opposition party intend to frustrate the proceedings on a Bill—say, the Finance Bill. The Government could therefore table a timetable motion such as this one. Government Back Benchers who did not want the Bill to be discussed could then deliberately occupy the whole of the time allocated by the timetable motion, thereby preventing discussion on the Bill.

Sir Peter Emery: In theory, that is right; but the opposite case is that so long as the Chair does not call successive Members from one side, the opportunity is given, even with this allocation of time, for Opposition Members to raise any matter on the Finance Bill that they wish. Although in theory what the hon. Gentleman says is true reductio ad absurdum it is not correct in practice.
As it is possible to debate the Finance Bill, I shall spend two minutes on an aspect of the 20 per cent. band which has not been discussed. It is important in my constituency and many parts of the south-west. The 20 per cent. band is normally talked about in relation to low-wage earners. Another section of the community willl benefit considerably from that band—pensioners who have saved all their lives and put by a little money. They paid taxes on that saved money and hope to have a little extra in addition to their pension from their savings after they retire. They often have a decreasing income as a result of the ever-increasing cost of living and they will welcome the 20


per cent. band. It is a direct benefit to some extent to those pensioners who have saved and live on their pension and their savings. It will be of particular benefit to many people in the south-west.
That argument has not been mentioned in the House and it ought to be understood and appreciated. In closing, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House give us his assurance that this type of allocation of time motion will not he used as a precedent in any move forward associated with the recommendations in the reports of the Select Committees on Procedure and on Sittings of the House?

Mr. Paul Boateng: The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) need have no fears. The Government have had their time—13 years—and it is up. That is why they come to the House today as a Government on their uppers—buffetted, battered and bewildered. We can see that by the state that the Financial Secretary is in. They are bewildered by the reception that their Budget has received throughout the land, and especially within the square mile.
I have here a little list which follows something that the hon. Member for Honiton said. The Leader of the House has a fair amount of responsibility for much that is on it, because it is a list of all the Bills that have been truncated by the Government since they took office in 1979 and back to 1945. When one examines the list, one realises that this is only the third time in the history of the House that a Finance Bill has been truncated in this way. We are to be allowed four hours, while in 1968—when the House first truncated a Finance Bill—three days were spent on recommittal, four days on Third Reading and there were 10 sittings in Committee.
In 1975, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spoke in such a debate—about 17 years ago almost to the day—when four days were allowed for Third Reading. In all those other instances there was an opportunity for the House to consider the substance of the Bill, an opportunity to peruse it and to study it.
I was amused, as were other Opposition Members—and, I fancy, some Conservative Members—at the opening words of the Leader of the House, because he told us that the Budget was a document which improved with the reading. That was the explanation of why it has taken so long to receive wider appreciation. We know that this morning the Government trail three points behind in the polls. We know that the Budget has been poorly received wherever it has been read. If it is a document that improves with study, why are we not being given more time to study it? Surely, if one uses that argument, the more we study it the better the Government will do in the opinion polls and the greater will be their opportunity to win the next general election, or so they believe. It does not make sense to truncate the Bill in this way.
The Leader of the House went on to say that another reason why the Bill should be pushed through in this way is because we had an opportunity to consider it during the two-day debate on the Budget. Anyone who believes that any contribution that we heard from the Treasury benches and the Conservative side of the House assisted that debate in any way, has not heard the speeches that we heard.
We only have to recall the lamentable performance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night. His speech consisted of a number of readings from a variety of responses by Tory hacks, posing as industrialists, up and down the land. They were Tory to a man—there was not a woman among them, because no woman reading the Budget would see anything in it for her. His quotations from those Tory hacks were reminiscent of a fading impresario. That was the guise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night—a fading impresario, knowing that his production was dead in the water, seeking by selective quotes to talk it up, in the hope that more people would attend the show.
I wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had read a little more widely. I wish that he had opened the Financial Times the morning after the Budget to read the little item that I have here. I am anxious that the Leader of the House should have the opportunity to see and to study it. Indeed, I intend to give it to him so that he can respond appropriately when summing up. It says simply: "Economists give their ratings". Six exconomists—a broad cross-section of the City, none of whom could be described as "youthful scribblers"—

Mr. Greg Knight: Useless scribblers.

Mr. Boateng: We shall let them know about that. Mr. Bill Martin, a well-known supporter of many of the Government's policies in the past, gives the score "1 out of 10". He said:
The budget will not act as a significant stimulus to the economy. The budget deficit is almost certainly out of control.
Mr. Kevin Gardiner of S. G. Warburg Securities gave it "4 out of 10" and said:
The chancellor was neither bold nor coherent. It was rather a mismash.
So it goes on, and it does not get any better.
However, one has to be fair, so let us look at one higher mark. Mr. Gavyn Davies of Goldman Sachs gave the Government "6 out of 10", saying:
It falls between every conceivable stool. It does not put Labour on the spot and it does not transform the Conservatives' electoral position.
The Budget's contribution to that has been to make them slip further in the polls. Those were the reviews in the City on the following day. Is it any wonder that the Government want to truncate the debate?
I did not hear any response to the valid constitutional argument of the hon. Member for Honiton and the valid constitutional arguments of my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House. There has been no response from the Government Benches about the propriety of what they are seeking to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will remember—he was on the Government Benches at the time—the nature of the contribution made by Conservative Members during the debate in March 1975 on the truncation of the Finance Bill. I have read his contribution—

Mr. Skinner: You are not going to read it, are you?

Mr. Boateng: I shall not embarrass my hon. Friend by reading it, out, save to say that it is well worth reading. Conservative Members made a number of contributions —a number are voices from the past. Two former Chancellors spoke during that debate. The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was among them, as was


his predecessor. They spoke against the use of a guillotine on Finance Bills. They produced a variety of constitutional arguments why it was totally improper and absolutely wrong ever to use such a guillotine. They are figures of the past. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, to some extent they can be put to one side, because that is precisely what their party has done to them.
One other person spoke with great force and vigour in that debate against the Government of the day for introducing a guillotine motion in relation to the Finance Bill. Who might that have been? Let me say this: he is a former chairman of the Conservative party.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).

Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is another figure from the past. We can discount him. This person is still hanging around. That is surprising, bearing in mind the muddle and confusion that he has created in every Department of state that he has ever sought. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] My hon. Friends recognise the person, and I suspect that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will also recognise the person. In those days, that person was going under the guise of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone. Since then, he has been translated into the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). Yes, I speak of no less a person than he.
The right hon. Gentleman is very much around and will undoubtedly be very much in evidence on the hustings during the next few weeks. I hope that he is very much in evidence, because every time that man shows his face on the hustings or on television, it is another vote for us. The more the Tories put him forward, the better it will be. He should be a member of the A-plus team, because he can only benefit our campaign.
What did the right hon. Gentleman have to say on 4 March 1975 during the allocation of time motion on the Finance Bill? He said:
I end very much as I started"—
that is not something that he always does or says in a speech—
by regretting the need for guillotine motions in general: but the particular character of this guillotine motion makes it unique. Since the war only one Finance Bill, that in 1968, has been guillotined. I believe that that was a very regrettable precedent because the unique power that we have"—
blah, blah, blah. He went on in the usual vein:
It is because we have the right to deny the executive of the day, whether Tory, Liberal or Conservative, Supply before there has been adequate debate or redress of grievance.
Characteristically, the right hon. Gentleman, by talking about "Tory, Liberal or Conservative" omitted altogether the Labour party. Indeed, he was subsequently taken to task by the House for that omission—a characteristic omission, because for him, we on this side of the House have no rights. Those who represent the interests of the people are not to be regarded. It was a Freudian slip.
The right hon. Gentleman continued:
If we surrender that right we are surrendering one of the very reasons that have brought us into being as a legislative House. For these reasons I very much oppose this guillotine measure."—[Official Report, 4 March 1975; Vol. 887, c. 1331.]
That is the right hon. Member for Mole Valley. We look forward very much to seeing in which Division Lobby he will pass in a few moments' time. Will he adhere to his principles? Will he stand firm and fast? If he does, it will be

the first time we see him do anything of the sort. I suspect that he will vote to impose a guillotine on this Bill. In doing so, he will deny the British people redress for their grievances.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng: Not at the moment.
The right hon. Gentleman will deny the homeless, the jobless, mothers of young children who want an increase in child benefit and pensioners the opportunity to have their grievances properly aired in this Chamber today. But we will go out and about on the hustings and do more, much more than truncate the timing of this debate: we will truncate for the foreseeable future the political future of that discredited and redundant Government opposite.

Mr. MacGregor: I thank the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and my hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for their kind remarks about me in my role as Leader of the House. I am glad to have this opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Copeland for the courteous and constructive way in which he has made it possible for us to work together on the affairs of the House. We have made considerable progress in several directions, and I pay tribute to him for the part that he has played in that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) asked whether there would be some opportunity to discuss other detailed points of taxation, including the taxation of beach huts. I cannot promise him that beach huts will feature immediately in the next Finance Bill, but when the House returns we shall have the opportunity to have a second Finance Bill which will implement the other areas of the Budget and no doubt my hon. Friend will wish to table his amendment on beach huts then.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton raised a procedural point on this allocation of time motion, and the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) made heavy weather of it. My hon. Friend made a fair point. It is fairly obvious to the whole House that this Finance Bill is being considered in rather unusual circumstances. That destroys the whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument when he complained about my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend's remarks were made in relation to a large Finance Bill well ahead of a general election, so the position is not comparable.
It was interesting that the hon. Gentleman wanted to continue debating this Finance Bill. I suspect that that is because at the back of his mind he would rather postpone going to the country at this election. He has every reason to do so from his point of view. I hope that that is an appropriate answer to my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The point I wanted to make to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) was that the debate in March 1975 was followed by an election. The Labour party lost its first by-election when it was in government, and virtually every other by-election until 1979. Labour Members should therefore be rather more careful about their approach to finance and taxation.

Mr. MacGregor: As I must be brief, I shall not respond to my hon. Friend's point.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the reactions to the Budget, I have a whole string of favourable responses from large sections of industry, including the CBI, which I do not have time to repeat but which put it in the right context. Just as the hon. Gentleman's response was a travesty of the general reactions to the Budget, so were the remarks of the hon. Member for Copeland about the economy as a whole.
During the overall period of Conservative government, the United Kingdom economy has grown faster than that of almost every other economy in Europe for most of the 1980s. GDP, investment in manufacturing and productivity have grown faster than in Germany or France in the 1980s. There has been an increase in real take-home pay for a married couple on average earnings with two children. It is up by £78 a week at today's prices. The majority of pensioners have seen an increase in their real living standards of over one third and there has been a heavy concentration of Government resources on less well-off pensioners, including £700 million to the over-80s on income support. We have seen 4 million families buying their home for the first time. There are a third more businesses than there were in 1979. We have seen an increase of more than 1·5 million in the self-employed. A higher proportion of the work force is in employment than in any other European country, except Denmark. Our manufacturing industry has taken a greater share of world trade in each of the past three years.
I have already referred to the massive increase in business investment, capital investment and training. One aspect of that is inward investment. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) in his speech on Wednesday fantasised about the thoughts of Japanese business men and what they say about the economic policies that we have been pursuing. He does not need to fantasise. We see what they think from their reactions in surveys when they have invested here and, above all, in their practical actions and the amount of inward investment that they have made here, accounting for more than half of all Japanese investment into the European Community in the latest year for which figures are available.
Those are the actual reactions of business men to our economic policies. It is that solid record of economic achievement that has led the CBI to say that Britain is now incomparably better placed to met the competitive challenges of the 1990s than it was at the start of the 1980s. This Budget carries that process on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South refered to yesterday's local by-elections, in which we saw a good response. That also shows that the contortions that the Labour party has performed over its tax proposals and spending commitments in recent weeks mean that the people of this country do not trust Labour. They can be sure that the Labour party is the party of high spenders, high taxers, high borrowers and high inflation. That is why I have no doubt what the response will be when we go to the hustings. The Budget will help us in that process.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 149.

Division No. 110]
[11.30 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Allason, Rupert


Alexander, Richard
Amess, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Amos, Alan





Arbuthnot, James
Farr, Sir John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Ashby, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Aspinwall, Jack
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert
Fishburn, John Dudley


Atkinson, David
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bendall, Vivian
Franks, Cecil


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Freeman, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
French, Douglas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fry, Peter


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gale, Roger


Body, Sir Richard
Gardiner, Sir George


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gill, Christopher


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Boswell, Tim
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bottomley, Peter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowis, John
Gorst, John


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gregory, Conal


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bright, Graham
Ground, Patrick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hague, William


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Buck, Sir Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nicholas
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hannam, Sir John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butler, Chris
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Christopher


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Carttiss, Michael
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Cash, William
Hayward, Robert


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Churchill, Mr
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hind, Kenneth


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cormack, Patrick
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Critchley, Julian
Irvine, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jack, Michael


Curry, David
Jackson, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Janman, Tim


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
Kilfedder, James


Durant, Sir Anthony
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knowles, Michael


Evennett, David
Knox, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fallon, Michael
Latham, Michael






Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rowe, Andrew


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lightbown, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shelton, Sir William


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shersby, Michael


Maclean, David
Sims, Roger


McLoughlin, Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malins, Humfrey
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mans, Keith
Speed, Keith


Maples, John
Speller, Tony


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Marlow, Tony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Squire, Robin


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mates, Michael
Stern, Michael


Maude, Hon Francis
Stevens, Lewis


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Stokes, Sir John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sumberg, David


Miller, Sir Hal
Summerson, Hugo


Mills, Iain
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Sir David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Monro, Sir Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thorne, Neil


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Thornton, Malcolm


Moss, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nelson, Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tredinnick, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trotter, Neville


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Viggers, Peter


Norris, Steve
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Walden, George


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Page, Richard
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Walters, Sir Dennis


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Ward, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Warren, Kenneth


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Watts, John


Pawsey, James
Wells, Bowen


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wheeler, Sir John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Whitney, Ray


Porter, David (Waveney)
Widdecombe, Ann


Portillo, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Price, Sir David
Wilkinson, John


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wilshire, David


Rathbone, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Redwood, John
Wood, Timothy


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Yeo, Tim


Riddick, Graham
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Younger, Rt Hon George


Ridsdale, Sir Julian



Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. Neil Hamilton.


Rossi, Sir Hugh






NOES


Allen, Graham
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Anderson, Donald
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Leadbitter, Ted


Armstrong, Hilary
Leighton, Ron


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Litherland, Robert


Barron, Kevin
Livingstone, Ken


Battle, John
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Beckett, Margaret
Loyden, Eddie


Beith, A. J.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bell, Stuart
McWilliam, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Madden, Max


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Benton, Joseph
Marek, Dr John


Blunkett, David
Meacher, Michael


Boateng, Paul
Meale, Alan


Boyes, Roland
Michael, Alun


Bradley, Keith
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Caborn, Richard
Morgan, Rhodri


Callaghan, Jim
Morley, Elliot


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Mowlam, Marjorie


Cartwright, John
Mullin, Chris


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Murphy, Paul


Clelland, David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
O'Brien, William


Cohen, Harry
O'Hara, Edward


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Corbyn, Jeremy
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cousins, Jim
Patchett, Terry


Cox, Tom
Pendry, Tom


Crowther, Stan
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cummings, John
Prescott, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Primarolo, Dawn


Cunningham, Dr John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Radice, Giles


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Randall, Stuart


Dixon, Don
Redmond, Martin


Dobson, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Richardson, Jo


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Robinson, Geoffrey


Eastham, Ken
Rooker, Jeff


Edwards, Huw
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Enright, Derek
Rowlands, Ted


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Ruddock, Joan


Faulds, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


Fearn, Ronald
Sheerman, Barry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Fisher, Mark
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Flannery, Martin
Skinner, Dennis


Flynn, Paul
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Foster, Derek
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Fraser, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Spearing, Nigel


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Steinberg, Gerry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Straw, Jack


Gould, Bryan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Grocott, Bruce
Turner, Dennis


Hain, Peter
Walley, Joan


Hardy, Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Henderson, Doug
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Hinchliffe, David
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Winnick, David


Howells, Geraint
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hoyle, Doug



Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Janner, Greville
Mr. Robert Wareing.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Finance Bill and the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill:—

Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading: Finance Bill

1.—(1) The proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading of the Finance Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.

(2) Any stage of the Finance Bill may be proceeded with at the conclusion of the preceding stage, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between stages of a Bill brought in on Ways and Means resolutions.

(3) On completion of Second Reading of the Finance Bill any Question necessary for the House immediately to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House shall be put forthwith.

(4) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Commit tee on the Finance Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(5) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Finance Bill are taken.

(6) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Lords Amendments: Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill

2. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

3.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings on the Finance Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion at this day's sitting in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any Amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

4.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings on the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion at this clay's sitting in accordance with paragraph 2.

(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment made by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) if Mr. Speaker is satisfied that any remaining Lords Amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue such as is required to be authorised by resolution of the House under Standing Order No.

47 (Certain proceedings relating to public money) and that the charge has not been so authorised, he shall in accordance with Standing Order No. 76(3) (Lords Amendments deemed to be disagreed to) declare he is so satisfied and shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment;
(c) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(d) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Dilatory Motions

5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings at this day's sitting on either of the Bills to which this Order applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time

6.—(l) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings at this day's sitting on both of the Bills to which this Order applies.

(2) If the proceedings on the Motion for this Order were interrupted, or the proceedings on the Finance Bill are interrupted, under paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 11 (Questions of an urgent character which relate to matters of public importance etc.), the time at which proceedings on that Bill would otherwise be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be extended by a period equal to the duration of the interruption.

(3) If the proceedings of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill are interrupted under paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 11, the time at which proceedings on that Bill would otherwise be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 2 shall be extended by a period equal to the duration of the interruption.

Supplemental orders

7. (1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.

(2) If at this day's sitting the House is adjourned, or if this day's sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

8. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order.

Recommittal

9.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit either of the Bills to which this Order applies (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

10. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill.

11. The Proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

12. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

13.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

14. In this Order "the proceedings", in relation to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill includes proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.

Finance Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This short Bill contains those Budget measures that the Government consider it essential to pass into law before Parliament is dissolved and they put the Budget changes implemented on Budget day beyond legal doubt. I shall set out for the House what each of the clauses contain and then say something about the principal point of controversy, the reduction in the rate of income tax to 20p for the first £2,000 of income.
Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 confirm changes to excise duties implemented on Budget day. Clause I confirms the indexation of duties on alcohol—the rise of 4½ per cent. that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced. Clause 2 confirms the increase in duties on tobacco by about indexation on pipe tobacco and by 10 per cent. on cigarettes and other tobacco products. Clause 3 covers duty on petrol, diesel and other oils and confirms the indexation of duty on petrol and unleaded petrol and the rise in duty on leaded petrol by 7½ per cent. All those changes, as is normal with excise duties, came into force at 6 o'clock on Budget day. In addition, at midnight on Budget day, vehicle excise duties on cars went up to £110; clause 4 confirms that change. It also reduces the duty on small tricycles from £50 to £15—a small but welcome change to the users of those tricycles.
Clause 8, which reduces car tax from 10 to 5 per cent.—we know that that has already had a beneficial effect on the retail sales of motor cars—falls into the same category. So, too, does clause 7, which cuts the rate of VAT serious misdeclaration penalty and default surcharge. The lower rate of serious misdeclaration penalty has effect from Budget day. The lower maximum for default surcharge has effect from 1 April because this penalty is linked to monthly accounting periods.
The House gave provisional statutory effect to these changes on Budget day, but, under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, they must be confirmed by a Finance Bill before Parliament is dissolved. If not, Customs and Excise would be obliged to repay the extra tax that it had collected.
Clause 5 concerns another excise duty, betting duty. The reduction from 8 to 7 per cent. will have effect from 1 April, which is a convenient date for bookmakers who pay tax monthly.
Clause 6 deals with monthly payments on account for the largest VAT traders. I should perhaps say a word or two of further detail about that. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), having recovered from his exertions earlier this morning, is interested in this.

Mr. Paul Boateng: We are waiting for a joke.

Mr. Mellor: If the hon. Gentleman is looking for a joke, I will show him a mirror. That is just to show that I am awake and not entirely reliant on my brief.
Last autumn, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that, with the completion of the single market, some 90,000 businesses which bring goods and services into the United Kingdom from the rest of the EC would benefit from changes to VAT accounting procedures, but


the reintroduction of the system known as postponed accounting carries a once-off cash-flow cost. So as not to increase the public sector borrowing requirement in 1992–93, my right hon. Friend announced that the largest VAT payers would be required both to account for and pay VAT monthly from the autumn of 1992.
A number of companies have suggested that the requirement to make monthly returns as well as monthly payments imposes a needless burden, so my right hon. Friend the Chancellor acknowledged in the Budget that there was something in this point and agreed to drop the requirement to make monthly returns. Therefore, companies will now be asked only to make monthly payments on account. In the meantime, some companies have raised questions, as they are fully entitled to do, about the Government's powers in this area and have instituted proceedings for judicial review. With some six months to go until monthly payments are to be introduced, it is important to end uncertainty. Businesses require a clear basis on which to plan and that is provided for in clause 6, which puts beyond doubt the Government's powers to require some traders to make monthly payments on account.
The two remaining substantive clauses deal with income tax. Income tax must be renewed each year and, if that is not done, no income tax can be collected. The tax has to be renewed by 5 May every year. There would not be time to be sure of doing this after the election, so clause 10 reimposes income tax for 1992–93. Nearly 25 million people pay income tax and most never see an income tax return. They pay all their tax through PAYE and each year the Budget requires the Inland Revenue and employers to undertake a major recoding exercise for everyone on PAYE.
If the Government had renewed income tax before the election and done nothing else, all the income tax allowances and the basic rate limit would have been raised under the statutory indexation provisions. The Revenue would have had to undertake one recoding exercise to implement those changes and a second after the election to implement any changes contained in the second post-election Finance Bill which would be necessary. That would have been wasteful for the Inland Revenue and employers and confusing for taxpayers. That is why the Government have concluded that it is right to ask Parliament to confirm all the major income tax changes in the Budget and that is why clause 9 provides for the introduction of a lower rate of income tax, chargeable on the first £2,000 of taxable income. It also gives us a chance to establish a serious difference of view on this matter between the Conservative party and Opposition parties.

Mr. A. J. Beith: In discussing the effect on the Inland Revenue, will the Chief Secretary confirm or qualify the report in the Financial Times this morning that the Inland Revenue will need 800 additional staff to deal with all the pensioners who, in order to obtain the lower rate band for their savings, will have to put in a claim for the difference between the standard rate and the new lower rate? Is the figure of 800 initial jobs in the Inland Revenue correct or will it be a lower figure? If so, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what it will be?

Mr. Mellor: The figure is not correct. I do not have the exact figure, but it will be a great deal lower.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: It is astonishing that the Chief Secretary does not know that figure, as the additional staff required is one of the strongest arguments against the proposal for a lower rate band. I am in favour of lower rate bands, but I accept that that costs a considerable amount in payments for additional staff. The number of civil servants in the Inland Revenue has been reduced. I do not know how they will cope unless there is a large increase in numbers to deal with the large number of inquiries from those who have paid tax at 25 per cent. on dividends, interest or whatever. Even with quite small sums, they will want to reclaim the difference between the 25 per cent. and the new 20 per cent. band. Inland Revenue officials could be dealing with sums as small as £5, £10 or £20, which are out of line with the amount of time that such claims will take to process.

Mr. Mellor: I understand that the Inland Revenue anticipates a need for up to 300 additional staff in the first year and possibly more in subsequent years, depending on the take-up rate. The right hon. Gentleman's intervention makes clear the Labour party's extraordinary intellectual contortions. On the one hand, he says that he favours a reduction in the tax rate, but, on the other, he made a lengthy intervention putting the case against that. The fact that he is here shows that he is willing, ready and able to vote against the proposal. I find his position unconvincing. Indeed, my respect for him would be enhanced if I thought that he also found that unconvincing. I am sure that he does in his innermost thoughts, but I leave it to him.

Mr. Tim Smith: Was not the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the Labour Government reduced the rate of income tax? He knows that the Inland Revenue can cope with that. Is not the real point the fact that, whereas under his Labour Government the standard rate was 30p and the reduced rate 25p, now the standard rate is 25p and the reduced rate 20p?

Mr. Mellor: As I have reminded the House before, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was a Treasury Minister throughout the chaos and confusion of Labour's last period in office.
As well as renewing tax, clause 10 sets the lower rate at 20 per cent. and overrides indexation for the basic rate limit and the married couple's allowance for those under 65. The other allowances—personal and age-related allowances—are indexed under the statutory provisions.

Mr. John Fraser: I wish to raise a matter of some urgency as Easter is the traditional time for weddings. When double taxation relief was abolished on 31 August 1988, the consequence was that if a couple living together subsequently decided to marry, the tax cost to one or other of them on a £30,000 mortgage would be about £750. Does the Chief Secretary think that the Bill should include a minor change to enable such people to be married without being penalised? There is currently an adverse tax consequence in legitimising one's children.

Mr. Mellor: I am not aware that couples are penalised in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, he makes a perfectly fair point and I shall have it investigated. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will be able to deal with it when he replies to the debate.

Sir Michael Grylls: I note that the Bill includes no reference to the important and progressive changes in inheritance tax for independent family businesses, which were proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. His proposal was well received throughout the small business community. It is important that businesses are passed down to the next generation so that they can grow under that and subsequent generations. The current levels of taxation, although better than previously, are still quite heavy. What is happening with that proposal? Has my right hon. and learned Friend any idea of the Opposition's views? The small business community will want to know Labour's thinking. Will it support the Government's important proposals?

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend speaks with authority on these matters and I well understand his point. After the election, we will have to introduce another Finance Bill, with at least 75 pages dealing with a range of issues, including the important one mentioned by my hon. Friend. On the question of what the Opposition might think—or what their view is this morning, because it changes so often—I am sure that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) will be only too happy to deal with that in her speech.
Clause 10 also sets the limit on mortgage interest relief at £30,000. The limit must be set each year, but it is no increase on what has prevailed for some time.
I want to say a few words about the principal matter of controversy, which is the 20p tax band. There has been an astonishing volte face by the Labour party on that matter. As recently as 25 February, the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Gentleman for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), was reported as saying that we should have a lower starting rate because that would be fairer to people at the bottom. Within a matter of a few days, he and his party have been prepared to eat their words and vote against the proposal—as they have already done once. So that people are not mistaken, they are poised to do so again. They are ready to sacrifice the least well-off on the altar of a false and superficial commitment to fiscal probity.
During our debates on the Budget, the Opposition have failed to tell us why they are taking that view. No doubt, one reason is that they are probably too busy thinking up new taxes to levy. They have failed to give a proper account of why they are behaving in that way. Instead, an alleged commitment to and concern about the public sector borrowing requirement has emerged. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who served in the Treasury for all those years, can confirm that under the last Labour Government there was never a time when there was not a PSBR. If the Labour party believes that there should not be tax cuts while there is a PSBR, we can be absolutely sure that there will never be a tax reduction under a Labour Government. The only issue is by how much taxes will rise.

Mr. Boateng: We never said that.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman should be cautious, because that is certainly what the Opposition have said. Rather like some of the clients that the hon. Gentleman used to defend in his days in court, they want to change their story before they give evidence the next time. We shall be only too interested to hear today's story.

Mr. Boateng: I do not—

Mr. Mellor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me the courtesy of giving way to him before he speaks—

Mr. Boateng: rose—

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. If he asks me nicely, I will give way.

Mr. Boateng: I need no lessons from that colossus of the petty sessions on how to defend an indefensible case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has done that every single day of this Parliament's life.

Mr. Mellor: That was not much of a political intervention, but it was a fine bid for the Sir Donald Wolfit acting award.
In so far as the Labour party has a case on this issue, its entire basis is that the PSBR should not be increased to reduce taxation. If that is not Labour's argument, it is hard to see what shadow of an argument it has. Happily, we will hear the Opposition's view in due course, but it is already clear that under the last Labour Government the PSBR was higher on average than it has ever been under this Government, and it only temporarily fell to 3½ per cent. in 1977–78 following International Monetary Fund intervention.
In an astonishing move that destroyed whatever claim the Opposition make to being qualified to pass judgment on such matters, the PSBR was then permitted—notwithstanding that the economic cycle was moving upwards, at a time when a prudent Government would have put further pressure on the PSBR to bring it down into balance, as we succeeded in doing in the 1980s—to increase from 3½ to 5½ per cent. once the IMF's back was turned, so that the Labour Government could increase public expenditure and finance substantial tax cuts. There was a 2p cut in income tax and reductions in value added tax.
The shadow Chancellor was a member of that Labour Cabinet and was perfectly happy with that action, whereas the Leader of the Opposition—then a Back Bencher—was ranting, in opposition to his own Government, about the reckless nature of the proposals that they were carrying into effect. We should not hear too much more about fiscal probity from Labour Members.

Mr. David Nicholson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if, by some strange development, Labour's concern about the PSBR were to be genuine and if the Liberal Democrats were also serious about it—I believe that their I p on income tax is hypothecated to education—does not that cast considerable doubt on Labour and Liberal Democrat pledges in respect of pensions, child benefit and various other benefits? Would both parties keep faith with the electorate?

Mr. Mellor: Labour needs to answer several questions, and the fact that it chose not to produce its shadow Budget until after Parliament has been dissolved—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) is here again with that laugh of his, which he must practise in the bathroom every morning. It is about as fake as the canned laughter that one must endure on those awful television comedy shows. The funny thing is not that I have misspoken but that the Opposition think that it is funny that we appreciate that even when Labour did not


know that Parliament was to be dissolved, it nevertheless timed the publication of its shadow Budget for the day after the end of the Budget debate. What is the point of Parliament? The Opposition are always complaining that Ministers make announcements before bringing them to the House.
The Opposition did that in the belief that their Budget would escape scrutiny. As always, they were overoptimistic. They are right only to be properly pessimistic about the ability of their proposals to withstand scrutiny. It is a reflection of the chaos and confusion into which Labour has sunk that it feels compelled to produce a shadow Budget at all. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said earlier—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate a report which I have just received of a burning smell that seems to be coming from one of the Government Benches. Meanwhile, the Chief Secretary may continue.

Mr. Mellor: I will continue even as the flames lick around my ankles, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall direct a little cold air on them, in the hope that they will die down. I have been interrupted by many things in the House, but never before by an outbreak of fire. That is going a bit far. Obviously there are no lengths to which Opposition Members will not go to prevent democracy working properly.

Mr. Boateng: The burning started on the Government Benches.

Mr. Mellor: We shall find out whoever was responsible. My only fear is that you are about to be asphyxiated, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In September, the hon. Member for Copeland said that Labour would not produce a shadow Budget, but it has done so—not because Labour feels any need to be more candid with the electorate but because Labour has been driven to it by the number of holes punched in its proposals over the past eight weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) asked about the PSBR. Among the muddles that Labour needs to clear up—[Interruption.] I wish that I could have the attention of Labour Members for a moment. Are they worried that they will get burnt to death?

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I was just discussing my insurance policy.

Mr. Mellor: I shall keep a sepulchral silence on that.

Mr. Brown: For once.

Mr. Mellor: Indeed. It would be helpful if the hon. Member for Derby, South will clarify Labour's view on the PSBR when she addresses the House. The PSBR has reached its present level because of a fall in receipts occasioned by the present economic downturn and by necessary public expenditure commitments which the Government feel it is their duty to sustain over the cycle but which the Opposition—erroneously—have always condemned as derisory.
The shadow Chancellor admitted in his article in The Mail on Sunday two weeks ago that the PSBR would rise under Labour—but it would be for virtuous spending. Labour would take a convenient chunk of expenditure,

dub it virtuous and say that it would then be all right to borrow for that purpose. However, on "Newsnight" this week, the hon. Member for Derby, South said that Labour had no plans to increase the PSBR. A lot turns on that —all the commitments that Labour has made to interest groups throughout the country to spend more money on this, that and the other. They will be rendered nugatory if Labour stick with the PSBR as it now is, unless the party is prepared to increase taxes.
We know that Labour is prepared to increase taxes to a significant degree, but the question remains: how significant—or are Opposition spokesmen merely hoping to con the electorate into voting for Labour, knowing full well that Labour does not have the slightest intention of undertaking any of the expenditure that it has pledged? That is a real case for the Labour party to answer. The hon. Member for Brent, South should do what he did when he practised law—get a barrister to answer. We look forward to hearing the shadow Chancellor give his account.
Why has Labour decided to oppose the 20p tax band? It stems from an urgent and overwhelming desire to spend, which we know about, but also from Labour's desire to hide a number of its other spending pledges behind the notional availability of revenue—if Labour really is prepared to penalise those whose taxable incomes begin as low as £3,500 per year, by increasing their marginal rate of tax by 25 per cent.—so that it will then be able to peg on to that a large number of public spending commitments. They include, most ludicrous of all, the cost of implementing Labour's minimum wage proposals, which are meant to benefit the very people from whom Labour would raise taxes to pay for them.
I am sure that all the graduates on the Labour Benches of the Robert Maxwell school of creative accounting will be only too ready to ensure that money is spent not once, not twice, but many more times. I believe that Thames area water is consumed seven times before it reaches us here. Similarly, Labour's taxes will be spent time and time again in the election campaign, as promise is overlaid by promise.
Labour's original proposal was to soak the rich. Its definition of rich began with a person having an income of £20,400—which includes police sergeants, deputy head teachers and middle management, and that is pretty well the average wage for people working in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) and for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and others in the south.
The shadow Chancellor has been criticised over that policy and I suspect that one of the reasons for his shadow Budget is to give him the opportunity to respond to criticisms of Labour's proposed national insurance hike and 50 per cent. rate. I wonder whether the Labour party is proposing to move away from some of those policies. A climbdown would involve it in soaking the poor to save the rich. Is that why the Labour party requires money from those on £3,500, £4,000, £5,000 or £6,000 a year? Does it want to have a few more resources to allow it to cover its tracks on national insurance contributions or the 50 per cent. taxation proposal? That demonstrates the ludicrous situation into which it has put itself.
The Labour party's attitude to what people might do with the extra money that they will have in their pockets as a result of the change in taxation is an interesting one. What is its attitude to our belief that people have a right


to keep more of their money? The Leader of the Opposition talked about borrowing for a day at the races, as if putting more money into the pockets of those who are at the bottom of the income scale is giving them money for a day at the races. I was enchanted. The more that we see of the right hon. Gentleman during the election, the better.
When I returned home last night I wished quietly as a consenting adult to turn on BBC2 to get my nightly dose of Jeremy Paxman. It is something that I cannot go to bed without. I found that "Newsnight" had disinterred the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). I hope that the right hon. Gentleman appears a great deal during the election, too. No one more typifies the abject failure of the Labour Government than he. He was asked about the 20p rate and he said, from the position of the quite comfortable old age that I dare say he is now enjoying, that he was against it because
it would be spent on imports.
He then said that it might not be spent at all.
What do the Opposition think that they will gain by making these offensive and patronising remarks about ordinary people making normal spending decisions? Those people are entitled to have a little more money in their pockets. If they work hard, they are entitled to earn money and to spend it in ways that they choose to enhance their lives. They are not to be patronised by failed retired Labour politicians because they might choose to buy a radio made somewhere other than in the United Kingdom rather than, according to the Labour party, pursuing some allegedly socially more desirable objective. It reminds me of the old attitude, "Don't give them a bath because they will put coal in it." It seems that the Labour party is saying, "Don't let people keep money in their pocket because they might do something with it that we do not approve of." That is astonishing. It is the attitude of an aristocratic elite. The Labour party is the "people's party". Labour Members are the people whose sole purpose in this place is, allegedly, to represent the interests of the very people whose faces they propose to grind down by increasing the marginal rate of taxation by 25 per cent.
I support the tax changes because they represent a further step on a road that has brought about so many benefits to our country in the past decade or longer. That can be summed up with one statistic; the average family, even when we knock out the effect of the ravages of inflation, is £70 a week better off—it has £70 more spending power in its pockets—than it was in 1979. We know that that same family's living standards barely grew between 1974 and 1979. Money wages may have increased by 100 per cent., but the tide of rising prices meant that there was no real benefit at the end.
What has this meant in terms of the enlargement of the lives of those in all sections of our community? I am thinking about the way in which wealth has been created throughout society. There are now 10 million shareholders, 65 per cent. of whom are not in the professional and managerial classes. That is a real revolution in popular capitalism. Nearly 70 per cent. of the public are now home-owners. In this decade 4 million families have become home owners. This has come about because of the Conservative party's instinctive understanding of the basic beliefs of the British people. How many people go to the surgeries of my hon. Friends and say, "My great ambition

for me and my children is to be a tenant"? If we had not rescued council tenants from perpetual tenanthood under the Labour party, that would have been their prospect.
We know that 76 per cent. of homes have central heating, that 90 per cent. have colour televisions and that two thirds, from a standing start in 1979, when the technology was barely known, have videos. The number of people taking foreign holidays has doubled since—

Mr. David Winnick: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mellor: I shall carry on for a while.
The number of people taking foreign holidays has doubled since 1981. That is the revolution in which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will have so much confidence during the next three weeks. Whatever the ups and downs of the economic cycle, people realise that we have managed to improve the wealth and prosperity of the nation. We have done so by running a successful and dynamic economy. That has been achieved partly by—[Interruption.] I have now emptied the Strangers Gallery. It is one of those days when I should have stayed in bed. I was sorely tempted to do so. Perhaps it would have been the best decision. Usually it is necessary for the doors of the Strangers Gallery to be locked when I am speaking.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been told by the Serjeant at Arms that fumes in the area of the Strangers Gallery are causing discomfort and that the Gallery has been evacuated for the time being.

Mr. Mellor: Would that that opportunity had been offered to us on the Floor of the House. The least that I can do at this stage is to give way to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

Mr. Winnick: A short time ago, the Minister said that no one tells his Member that he wishes to be a tenant. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman's surgeries are different from mine and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. In most instances, people come to see us because they have housing problems. At my surgeries and in correspondence, 70 per cent. of the matters with which I am asked to deal are housing problems. The people who come to see me cannot afford to buy. They would be unable to do so even if interest rates were lower. They are desperate for somewhere to live. These are single people and families with one child or even two children. They have to wait years because since 1979 there has been a sharp decline in the number of council dwellings. If it is right to sell council dwellings—we are not in dispute about that—why should not those dwellings be replaced so that the people whom I have been describing are not punished and can be housed?

Mr. Mellor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point. He has allowed me to make it clear that no one comes to my advice centre—I suspect that this is true of his —saying that his ambition is to be a tenant. I accept entirely, however, that there are people who will be tenants. I accept also that there is a need for tenanted accommodation. There is an argument about how that should be produced.
The conversion of the hon. Gentleman to accepting the selling of council houses would not have occurred, I think, if it had not been for the success of the Government's policy. He would certainly not have thought of the idea.
The atmosphere in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, is pretty awful. I am finding the fumes irritating. I know that I should be the last one to want to resume my seat, but—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. On that basis, I shall suspend the sitting for 10 minutes.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Mr. Mellor: As I was saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, the tremendous increase in prosperity throughout society during the past 13 years was due in part to the fruits of a successful, dynamic economy during the 1980s. It was also due to the Government's constant attention to reductions in the direct rate of tax: 3p off in the first Parliament, 3p off in the second Parliament and 2p off plus the 20 per cent. band in the third Parliament. If we go back to that typical family which is £70 a week better off, more than £20 a week of that is accounted for by the tax that it no longer has to pay but which it would have had to pay if the rates of taxation that prevailed under the Labour party had been continued.
The debate provides us with the chance to make clear a great difference between ourselves and the Opposition. They proceed under a fundamentally false assumption. Taxation is a takeaway, and a reluctance to tax is not a giveaway or a bribe. We cannot emphasise that point too much.
The Opposition say that public services are underfunded, but, in deference to the time problems, I shall not deal with that issue in detail. I merely point out, as I did during the Budget debate, that the health service and all other substantial public services have gained enormously from increased public expenditure, the better direction of that expenditure and the more effective management that has been possible under the Government.
On health, we know that the Labour party would have to spend £1 billion extra on the minimum wage and on getting rid of charges and competitive tendering before a penny could be spent on patient care. That, of course, explodes the myth that the Labour party would spend wisely the money that it would get back out of tax cuts.
I had a good illustration of that this morning as I was coming from my home in Putney through the borough of Lambeth to Westminster. Wandsworth has a nil community charge under Conservative-controlled council. Lambeth has a community charge of £449.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Pillock.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman, with charm, says, "Pillock" but the pillocks are the members of Lambeth council, not us. I wonder when he will be prepared to do something about it. Is he embarrassed by the fact that Lambeth has a community charge of £449? He is now tight lipped—not even the word "pillock" escapes his poetic lips. If he is not embarrassed, he should be, because I have the 1992–93 figures of Government assistance per head to those two London boroughs. Wandsworth, which has a nil community charge, gets £1,424 per head from the Government. Lambeth, with a community charge of £449, gets £1,628 per head from the Government.
We know that far from spending wisely the money that it is not prepared to let the public keep, Labour will scatter it around as it is scattered in Lambeth, Haringey, Hackney and various other boroughs. People said that the pathetic fallacy was believing that animals think like human beings. The truly pathetic fallacy is that people could believe that the Labour party would spend more wisely than they could spend it themselves.
To sum up, we have established the real difference between the parties. The Labour party began by believing that the rich began at £20,400. No one below that, it said, was to be inconvenienced by its tax proposals. We now learn that a single wage earner is rich, starting at £3,500 a year. That is the point at which the Labour party proposes to increase the marginal rate of tax by 25 per cent. It is a rake's progress as the Labour party moves from Robin Hood to Robbin' Everybody.

Mr. Dobson: That is very original.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman has come alive again, like something out of the Hammer films that used to delight me as a child. Truth, not originality, is the name of the game. Originality is what the hon. Gentleman makes up. In any event—and certainly in political terms—it is not a compliment. The hon. Gentleman is a past master at it. He owes his facts to his imagination and his jokes to his memory.
If the Labour party is prepared to increase the marginal rate for the least well-off, what does that tell us about what it might be prepared to do about the 25 per cent. rate? After all, Labour opposed the reduction from 33p to 25p every step of the way. We must now ask ourselves, what other tax plans is Labour concealing up its sleeve to satisfy the restless desire of each and every member of the Labour Front Bench to spend.

Mr. Tim Smith: rose—

Mr. Mellor: I am just about to finish.
I welcome the opportunity for the Labour party to confirm its complete addiction to the taxation of each and every person in the community. No one is safe, and we shall prove that this afternoon.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: We can be under no illusion today that those of us who have been fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are speaking for the benefit of anyone except those present in the Chamber, for Hansard and for posterity. None of us will nurture any illusions about what the media will report of today's debate.
Nevertheless, in the Finance Bill, the Conservative party is offering a "buy now, pay later" Budget for a "buy now, pay later" election. It shows that one cannot teach an old Government new tricks. It is, after all, the same stunt that they pulled in 1983, when they cut taxes a month before the election and spending a month after. It is the same stunt that they pulled in 1987, when they cut taxes before the election and the spending promised at election time never materialised.
As a Second Reading of a Finance Bill, this must be one of the oddest in history—odd even before we had the fire, and heaven only knows why that happened. Four hours for all the stages of a Finance Bill from start to finish—including a debate on the guillotine motion—is certainly a


most extraordinary precedent, even for this Government. It is an extraordinary precedent and an extraordinary procedure, due not to accident or misfortune but to the sheer incompetence and mismanagement of the Government, who cannot get right even the timing of the election.
On Second Reading, the House weighs legislation, considers the circumstances with which it is designed to deal and its fitness for the purpose. One only has to consider this cursory Bill to realise that the circumstances with which it is designed to deal are the problems that the Government face in getting from here to 9 April. It is visibly designed to deal not with the country's circumstances but with the narrow purposes of the Conservative party.
In many ways, the Bill characterises the Government's approach. The Secretary of State for Employment said that this Budget would be a Budget for jobs. It is not. The Chancellor said that it was a Budget for recovery. It is not. The Bill contains some measures that will be of help to business, and we welcome them, but the problems with which they are designed to deal were created by the Government. Some of the measures, such as those for car tax, will alleviate the strains of the recession that the Government have caused. However, it is only under this Government that the overall burden of taxation on cars and on people has become so high that the measure is needed. The weight of the car tax plus the value added tax that they have more than doubled in their 13 years in office have made taxes on cars so high.
The Bill contains other measures, such as the easing of the business rate. The Government introduced the business rate, ignored the cries of small business and then, miraculously, on election eve they listen at last. Then they expect credit for easing problems that they, and they alone, created.
There are no other measures of any weight to promote recovery. Why? The answer can be found in the Red Book. Yet again, the Government tell us that recovery has already begun and will accelerate from the end of this month. We certainly hope that they are right, but, of course, that is what they told us last March, last April, last May, last June, last July, last August, last September, last October, last November, last December, last January and last February.
What is holding up the recovery? The Government are. It is held up by the uncertainty of waiting and waiting while they have tried and failed to find a favourable time to go to the country, by the damage caused by their prolonged use of high interest rates to squeeze out inflation which they fuelled for so long, and by the fear of the unemployment that they have fostered and to which they remain supremely indifferent.
In their private briefings, Conservative Members and Ministers still tell the press, "Unemployment didn't lose us the election in 1983 or 1987, and it won't lose us the election this time," as if that were all that mattered. Of course it is all that matters—to them. Never mind the costs to the country directly or indirectly—such as the £8,000 per person unemployed. Never mind the devastation to millions of individuals and millions of families. There is nothing in the Bill that begins to tackle the problems of unemployment, nothing to stimulate the construction

industry and nothing to deal with skill shortages, which are damaging in themselves as well as damaging to the prospects for inflation. There is nothing to build for the longer term and nothing directly even for families with children—although there is what I can describe only as a sop for some pensioners.
Seventy-five per cent. of pensioners do not pay income tax—they do not have big enough pensions—so they cannot benefit from the lower band. The Government have given an increase in a means-tested benefit, but they must know that the poorest pensioners of all are the million or so who will not claim means-tested benefits because they were raised in a generation which regards such benefits as charity, so they live below the poverty line. The Budget does nothing for them.
The main measure in the Budget—as the Chief Secretary implied at the end of his speech, it is the only measure that the Government care about—is the tax cut, which, we are told, has been carefully targeted. Ministers, including the Prime Minister, who sat smirking on the Front Bench as the Chancellor revealed the mechanism of the tax cut, are so thrilled with their own cleverness that they have given the game away. The tax cut is carefully targeted not on the poor, but, as Ministers told Lobby journalists, on trying to embarrass the Labour party. Well, it does not.
What a revealing glimpse those comments give us into the minds of the men who govern us. Here we are in the depths of recession, with, high unemployment, negative growth—with, at best, the prospect of a return to low growth—record bankruptcies and record home repossessions. What weighs on Ministers' minds? What keeps them awake at night? They ask themselves not, "What can we do to solve the problems of the country?" but, "How can we dish our opponents?" Where is the vision? Where is the foresight? Where, even, is the responsibility? Plainly, those qualities are not to be found in the Cabinet. And the Government have the gall to say that we are not fit to govern.
The Government have had 13 years of unbroken and secure rule. They have had more than £100 billion from the North sea, where we made the investment and they have reaped the returns. They have made billions of pounds from selling the family silver. Three times they have doubled inflation between elections. Three times they have raised interest rates between elections. This is the third time that they have cut taxes before an election, and three times they have broken their promises after elections.

Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Lady says that the Government have no vision, yet, for a long time now, the Government have been committed to achieving a 20 per cent. basic rate of income tax. What does the hon. Lady think would be the best way of doing that—to cut the standard rate or to introduce a lower band for low-paid workers?

Mrs. Beckett: I am so glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. His intervention speaks for itself. I mention vision, and what comes into his mind is money.
The Bill represents the way in which the Government will end—not with a bang but with a whimper of a Finance Bill. That whimper is not loud enough to drown the cries from outside the Chamber, such as the cries of youngsters with no job, no home, no security, no prospects and no hope. There are the cries of the pensioners who are slipping


further and further behind the standard of living of people in work, and the cries of the sick, who cannot make themselves heard above the racket of Ministers boasting about their record on the health service. There are the cries of the victims of crime, which is at record levels—those are the people who have been exposed to the full consequences of the creed that the Conservatives have preached for 13 years—"Look after yourself, and the devil take the hindmost."
One of the few things that the Chief Secretary said with which I could agree is that the Bill throws into relief the nature of the choice before the British people. The Government say, "We shall take less from you in taxation, and that will leave you free to make your own choices." They mean choices such as what kind of health care to buy, and how much, and what kind of education to buy, and how much—choices such as how much pension to buy, and what kind of transport to use. "Make your own choices," the Government say to the people of this country, "because you are on your own."
For most people, even for those in work, those are choices which they cannot exercise on their own. In the days before we contributed to fund a national health service, a national education service and nationally guaranteed pensions—the good old days when income tax was only a few pence in the pound; the days to which Conservative Members tell us that it is their vision to return us—harsh experience taught our forebears—at least, the Opposition's forebears—the limits of the freedom that today's Conservative party extols.
Our forebears found that to survive, and certainly to prosper, they had to work together. They set up their own schemes to which each contributed a little when he or she could, so as to help one another when that was needed. That worked, so we, as a country, made it the basis of so much that people take for granted today, such as the health service, the education service and so on.
The tax system is the structure for that pooling of resources. We neither want nor propose a harsh tax system. We want a tax system that is fair and seeks, as nearly as possible, to treat people in the same circumstances in the same way. We shall make proposals and lay them before the country in the next few days, and we want everyone to see them. The structure of taxes that we propose will be designed not to fuel the politics of envy, but to fund the ethics of community.
This is not the right Finance Bill for this time. It is time for a different Finance Bill; it is time for a Labour Government.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: The speech of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was both depressing and patronising. That might not be so exceptional in itself, were it not intended to perpetrate yet another fraud on the British taxpayer and on the electorate. The hon. Lady sought to criticise a wholly welcome measure which reduces taxes, but she did not spell out her alternative. She sold the pass by not delivering the secret Labour Budget which is apparently to be declared after Parliament has prorogued. What sort of choice has anyone listening to the debate here or outside the House if we are not to be privy to Labour's formula for success? What are the Labour party's credentials for criticising the Government?
I believe that the Budget was a winning Budget for taxpayers and for business, and that the Finance Bill— the provisions of which are wholly welcome—should have been nodded through the House. I was dismayed and shocked that the Labour party and other Opposition parties could find fault with and question a Bill which will bring relief to businesses and individuals throughout the country. I certainly welcome the Bill wholeheartedly, as I welcome the whole strategy underlying my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget. I should tell my right hon. and hon. Friends the Treasury Ministers that I especially welcome the intention behind the Bill—to ensure that central to our economic policy is a determination to reduce the rate of inflation and keep it low.
I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be interested to know that this week, for the first time in nearly 30 years, the latest figures announced show that our rate of inflation is lower than that of Germany. Britain is now leading the way in the European Community with policies determined to pursue sound currency, low inflation and low interest rates. Those who seek to pursue policies of higher taxation, of redistribution towards the centre and of the devaluation of currency will find that the inevitable consequence will be higher interest rates borne by individuals, by mortgage payers and by businesses throughout the land. Only by making our centrepiece a determination to restore sound money and to keep down the rate of inflation can we regenerate sustainable growth, the prosperity that it brings and the jobs that will be derived from it.

Mr. Derek Enright: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had not repeated the slur on Germany. Does he not find it remarkable that the German economy is as strong as ours despite having taken on a decrepit country and welded it into its own economy, while this Government have made our economy into a decrepit economy?

Mr. Nelson: The new Germany may be held back in its progress by the socialist domination of part of it in the past. I was not knocking Germany—my point was that we now have a lower inflation rate than Germany has, and people should know that because it is very good news. All that we heard from the hon. Member for Derby, South was the carping, the criticism, the self-effacement and the deprecation for which the Labour party has made its name and which is so injurious to public and international confidence.
I especially welcome the introduction of the 20 per cent. band. I hope that, even in the short time left, we shall have an opportunity to vote on the clause which implements it. The proposal will be the litmus test for the public to see where the Labour party really stands. The logic of Labour's position must be to vote against the proposal. Labour will then have to go to the public and argue that the return of a Labour Government would not result in a significant increase in taxation. That would perpetrate yet another fraud on the public and it is right that we should decry it.
The Bill follows a Budget which brought one measure of relief on which I especially congratulate the Government. Those of us who represent constituencies in the south of England, where the recession has been hard and deep, are conscious of the impact of the recession on the cash flow of many businesses, especially small


businesses. Even with the transitional arrangements, the impact was especially marked when the uniform business rate was introduced.
With Conservative colleagues in Kent, Hampshire, East Sussex and West Sussex, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, went to see him and approached the Prime Minister and others. We urged the case for freezing the transitional element of the UBR so that an additional burden was not placed on such businesses in the forthcoming year. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced such a measure, which is wholly welcome in my constituency and elsewhere and shows yet again that the Government listen to people. The Government respond to representations made to them. The Government are not unbending. The Conservative party heeds the voices of those who express concern and it adjusts its policies. That worked for my constituents and the representations were listened to. I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
I should appreciate an answer from my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on one narrow point. The relief brought with the reduction in the car tax will be of immeasurable help to the car industry, to employment and to the national economy. However, one aspect has aroused concern among many dealers who have already bought cars in stock and among many finance houses that have bought cars for sale through dealerships. They have had to pay the full rate of car tax, although people who buy those cars after the Budget date will expect to pay only the 5 per cent. rather than the 10 per cent. rate of car tax. With the large stock of cars currently held by dealers and by leasing and finance houses, there will be some perverse results if there is not a change. Just as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was good enough to listen to the reasonable concerns expressed by business about the UBR, I hope that in the limited time that, rightly, we have to debate the matter, some further relief can be announced or some clarification given about the car tax on vehicles that have not yet been sold to buyers but are held in stock by finance houses and dealers. If the Government do that, it would help to get the economy moving even faster than the Budget and the Bill will.
The Bill is a winning Bill for my constituents, for businesses in my area and for the economy as a whole. It follows the Conservative policies that we have set from the beginning of this Parliament. It is wholly prudent, it reduces taxation and it draws out the fundamental differences and the choice for the electorate at the election. The Bill is worth supporting and it goes to the heart of what we in the Conservative party stand for.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) advanced the astonishing proposition that the Bill should go through on the nod without any debate. He then proceeded to give two clear reasons why it should not. First, he made a perfectly legitimate inquiry about the detailed application of the car tax provisions, on which he hopes to get a useful answer which might be of some assistance to his constituents. Secondly, he talked about provisions for small business and about the uniform business rate. He was obviously

ignorant of the fact that such provisions are not included in the Bill. One purpose of this debate is to discover what the Bill actually contains.
My first question to the Financial Secretary is: why are provisions on the uniform business rate not in the Bill? Does he doubt whether the Labour party, if in office, would implement the provisions? They are important provisions. If he entertained any doubt, that was all the more reason why such provisions should have been included in the Bill because there would then have been no doubt that they would be enacted.
The Financial Secretary may argue that the provisions are complicated. One of the ways in which he could have got round part of that difficulty would have been to accept our proposal—which is similar to his, but a little greater in cost—to freeze the 4·1 per cent. increase in the UBR. That could have been achieved with fewer legislative complications than the arrangements he described. I agree that the transitional provisions should be extended and we welcome that part of the Budget. However, it would have been far better for that provision to be included in the Bill and I hope that the Financial Secretary will tell us why it is not.
It is important that business should get that relief. It will not be a massive stimulus to the economy, but it will save some small businesses from going to the wall and it will relieve the cash flow problems in others. I welcome the fact that something on an equivalent scale to what we asked for is being done.
Much has been said about the lower rate band at 20 per cent. The truth is that the lower rate band is abolished by Conservative Governments when they come into office and reintroduced on the eve of their departure. That has happened in this case. The lower rate band was abolished by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). Conservative Members should remember that he said:
The case for the lower rate band was never at all clear. The 25 per cent. rate was not the effective marginal rate for more than a small number of full-time adult workers. For those on lower incomes an increase in the personal allowance would always have been more valuable than the lower rate band, and the existence of this lower rate band added significantly to the complexity of the tax system.
He mentioned another advantage of abolishing the lower rate band. He said:
there will be a valuable staff saving of 1,300 persons."— [Official Report, 26 March 1980; Vol. 981, c. 1475.]
When I challenged the Chief Secretary this morning on the point, he could not tell us how many extra staff would now be required simply to enable pensioners to reclaim their lower rate. Now that the composite rate has thankfully been abolished—it is right that it was—pensioners who want to take advantage of the lower rate band on their savings to get the £100 will have to apply to the Inland Revenue for it at the end of the tax year. Those applications will have to be processed, so to dispense the £100 or less, the Financial Times estimates that 800 additional jobs will be required. The Chief Secretary said that the increase would be 300 jobs in the first year and perhaps more in the second. No doubt, we shall get a precise figure later. It is probably the greatest job creation element in the Budget. That does not seem to me to be the most productive area in which to engender jobs. I would much rather we were engendering jobs in more productive sectors of the economy.

Mr. David Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair. A few weeks ago when we were debating the impact of the business rate, he and I made the same recommendation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done exactly what he and I recommended and that will help jobs.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman must have missed the first paragraph of my speech. I welcomed what the Chancellor had said he would do and pointed out that it was not in the Bill and that it would have been very much better if it had been. The hon. Gentleman should not intervene in speeches that he has not heard or has not listened to.
The best demolition of the lower rate band appears in this morning's editorial in the Financial Times. The point is made clearly:
If the Government wishes to offer the flattery of imitation, it should restrict itself to Labour's good ideas and not its bad ones.
In a Budget dictated mainly by the priorities of partisan politics, the Government have selected the least effective means of targeting help to the low paid because it happens to have been espoused by the Labour party. It would be hard to imagine a more ludicrous basis on which to make Finance Bill and Budget decisions.
We are talking about £100 for those whose income carries them right through the lower rate band. That is everyone in the Chamber you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our Clerks and our Serjeant at Arms. Many low-paid people earn less than that income band and therefore will not get tax relief on the full amount. They will not get £100 and some people who do get it will have some of it deducted from their family credit. For many of them, the benefit will be much less than £100.
Spent in investment measures, that money would have brought more help to those people. That money spent on measures that would give some of them better-paid jobs would have been a great help. That money would have been spent more effectively providing employment for their children and families in the construction industry and in the trades and professions that can gain from an advance in the construction industry.
The Government have revealed in their Budget a PSBR of £28 billion and have sought to criticise those of us who argue for an even higher figure. I have argued that, if we are to secure investment, we need a combination of revenue-raising measures and a PSBR of £30 billion. The Government had better not launch an attack on our £30 billion proposal, because their PSBR proposal for next year is £32 billion and our proposed £30 billion includes money for measures that would give us a return in future years.
The truth about the Budget is that it offers no hope of getting Britain out of recession, no hope of reversing the pattern of decline in manufacturing industry and no hope of providing what is needed to make industry prosperous and competitive in future. It is a political gamble. It is not a measure of economic commitment and progress at all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The Front-Bench spokesmen intend to restrict their winding-up speeches to five minutes each. If those hon. Members who have been rising would do likewise, it should be possible for me to call them all

Mr. Peter Rost: Even though this will be my last speech in the House after 23 years here—not for the first time, to a Chamber that is nearly empty—I shall not detain the House by adding my praise for an excellent Budget which will help those most in need and boost our economic recovery.
I should like merely to express a reservation about clauses 3 and 4 which deal with fuel taxes and car tax. Although I warmly welcome the wider differential between lead-free and leaded petrol, I should have liked a similar differential in respect of diesel fuel. Such a measure is much needed and would have provided a stronger market signal to consumers to use an environmentally more acceptable and desirable fuel.
Other countries have provided such encouragement. In a number of reports on the threat of global greenhouse warming and energy efficiency, the Select Committee on Energy has made such recommendations. In making proposals for tackling the difficult question of energy and transport, the Government's own White Paper, "Our Common Inheritance", makes similar suggestions. Moreover, the European Community has been advocating from Brussels that member states promote diesel rather than petrol. A slightly wider differential in the tax regime would have triggered a stronger signal.
We are all aware that energy and the environment are increasingly matters of great international concern. We also know that energy use in the transport sector is the fastest growing, the most difficult to tackle and the most polluting. Had we introduced such a measure this year, we should have provided the right signal to consumers. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will consider introducing one after the election. I hope that he will seriously consider giving this important environmental boost through the Budget and the fiscal system and encouraging more use of diesel for the sake of reducing global greenhouse warming emissions and other emissions.

Mr. Paul Flynn: It is claimed that this is a Budget for recovery, but mocking that claim is the news from my constituency this morning that the INMOS company is definitely to close its operation there and move its production to Agreti in Sicily and Roullet in France. The Finance Bill contains many measures which will affect my constituents—on car tax and income tax, for example. The very cars that are the subject of that tax—intelligent cars—have at their heart a thing called a transputer, as will colour fax machines and the miraculous virtual reality high-definition computers that will be selling in vast numbers over the next decade. Where in the Finance Bill is the commitment to British industry to allow a product that is British invented, British designed and the result of investment by a Labour Government to continue to be manufactured here? The transputer is about to take off internationally, but it will be manufactured outside Britain. This is not a Budget for recovery but a Budget for the Conservative party.
Following this morning's announcement, redundancies will be announced immediately and will continue to be announced for a long time. Already, 400 jobs have been lost and 450 more are to go. Although that is a devastating blow for Newport, it is also a mortal blow for the sunrise


high-tech industries in Britain generally, because the transputer—the miracle computer on a chip—is going. We shall become the customers—the buyers of the transputer and its applications throughout the world. That British invention will be manufactured in Texas, Malta, Singapore, Sicily and France. It is an utter disgrace.
This morning, the Chief Secretary did not tell jokes as he did last time. Last time, he told one parrot joke and one haggis joke. I can understand his not wanting to tell a parrot joke because of the sensitivities about Polly Peck. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also accused the Labour party of being anthropomorphic and said that we attributed to animals the feelings of human beings. It struck me forcefully this morning that, when he leaves Parliament in a month's time, the Chief Secretary can get an alternative job delivering gorillagrams without the aid of a monkey suit. It also struck me, when our sitting had to be suspended because of a fire elsewhere in the Palace that the event was reminiscent of what happened many years ago when a repressive Government burnt the Reichstag and made van der Lubbe the fall guy. When the Government collapse in burning ruins in a month's time, the fall guy will be the present Prime Minister.

Mr. David Shaw: This is a sensible and prudent Budget. It is such a prudent Budget that it has upset Labour Members. The Budget is being implemented when we do not have the crisis that Labour had in 1976 and 1978. We have not had to cut the hospital building programme as Labour did in 1976. We do not have the situation which occurred in 1978, when taxes were so high under the Labour Government that they led to massive strikes and inflation. Surely, the point about the Budget is that income tax reductions and job creation go side by side.
The Budget will produce a further £2 million of disposable income in my constituency. That money will be welcome. Such money helps the Dover ferry industry. Every tax reduction under the present Government has resulted, two years later, in significant increases in passengers and freight carried by the Dover ferry industry. I have every confidence that this tax reduction will result in more freight and passengers using the Dover ferry industry.
I also commend to the House the reduction in the uniform business rate, which has been achieved by freezing the transitional element. That will be good for small businesses and the many shopkeepers in my constituency.
Of particular interest to me is what the Budget does for pensioners. Less well-off pensioners will receive benefits through the income support mechanism. Under Labour, not only was the inflation calculation fiddled in 1976 so that pensioners lost out, but inflation destroyed every pension increase that the Labour Government gave between 1974 and 1979. Pension increases and promises of pension increases in election campaigns arc not worth the paper they are not printed on unless they are real pension increases and inflation rates are low. That is the only way to give pension increases. That will be achieved by the Finance Bill because this is a prudent and sensible Budget. The measures are recognised by the City of London and the outside world community as prudent and sensible.

Mr. Tony Banks: I do not know how Conservative Members were able so easily to convince themselves that the Budget is enormously popular. There were no street parties in Newham and no dancing on Stratford High road when the Budget was announced. The Budget means very little to the people I represent in the east end of London. What will the Budget do for jobs? What will it do for people who find that what little has been given to them will be reclaimed through the withdrawal of means-tested benefit? That is the whole point. The Budget means nothing for the real problems of people in my area.
Since 1979, unemployment in the London borough of Newham has gone up by about 326 per cent. We have seen an 84 per cent. decline in job vacancies. We have an unemployment rate of 18 per cent. in the London borough of Newham. We have lost about 40 per cent. of manufacturing jobs. The Budget will do nothing whatever to address those real problems.
The day after the Budget, a cordial gentleman stopped me on the street, as they often do in my area, and said, "Give 'em a good kicking, Tone." Those were his precise words. Obviously, I cannot endorse the proposed action, but I sympathise with the sentiment. The people of the east end have been kicked around by the Government for 13 years. They want an opportunity to give the Tories a good kicking, and on 9 April that is exactly what they will do.

Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) says that the lower rate band means nothing. If it means nothing, why was it Labour policy until a few days ago? We knew that Labour wanted to tax the higher paid. We now know that Labour wants to tax the lower paid as well. That should come as no surprise to anyone who remembers the record of the last Labour Government, because that is the best indication of what a future Labour Government are likely to do.
In 1974, only a few days after the general election, the standard rate of income tax was increased from 30 to 33 per cent. In the Budget of 1975, it was increased again from 33 to 35 per cent. By 1976, public sector borrowing had reached 9 per cent. of GDP. It was so huge that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), had to go to the International Monetary Fund and Britain had to be bailed out. It was only when the IMF imposed some discipline on the Labour Government that things started to return to a more sensible arrangement.
It was in the following Budget, in 1977, that the standard rate of income tax was cut from 35 to 33 per cent. As a result, public sector borrowing went up once again. If it was right to do that in 1977, why was it wrong to do it in 1992? We have not been told. If it was right, at the end of the previous Labour Government, to have a lower rate band of 25 per cent., why is it wrong to have a lower rate band of 20 per cent. now? We have not been told.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) complained that I mentioned money during proceedings on the Finance Bill. I found that rather strange. The Government are committed to reducing the standard rate of income tax to 20p in the pound, and that is a very welcome target. Opposition Members do not seem to


understand that it is not their money—it is taxpayers' money—and we need to keep to a minimum the amount that we tax people in order to pay for decent public services. That is the object of the Budget. The Budget is a step on that road, and I welcome the Finance Bill.

Mr. David Winnick: It is not surprising that the country's reaction to the Budget has been negative. The country knows what every hon. Member knows—that the Budget was determined not by the country's needs but by the needs of the Conservative party and the Government's wish to be re-elected. It is a negative Budget, and that is why it has been rejected by the country.
Let us consider, for instance, the small increase that was given to pensioners on income support. Any help for pensioners is to be welcomed, but that increase, which has been given to a relatively small number of pensioners, is derisory compared with what pensioners have lost as a result of the decision in 1980 that pensions would no longer be increased in line with earnings.
What have pensioners lost? For a single pensioner, it is £17 a week—I emphasise "a week"—and for married pensioners it is £26 a week. That is how pensioners have been cheated by the Government. Of course, there were also the changes in housing benefit in 1988. That is the year, incidentally, when the top rate for income tax was reduced from 50 to 40 per cent. At the same time, many people on relatively low incomes found that, as a result of the changes in housing benefit, they had to pay far more in rent and poll tax.
Pensioners—admittedly single pensioners—in my constituency receive about £60 a week, but they must pay £10 in rent and poll tax. That is totally unfair. Even the increase announced in the Budget will be subject to means testing. Not all pensioners on income support will get that £2 or £3, because they will pay more in rent and poll tax.
My region, the west midlands, has been devastated as a result of Government policies. There have been two major recessions. We lost many jobs in the early 1980s. In the first recession, in the early 1980s, 280,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in the west midlands. In the black country, 70,000 jobs were lost.
Far too many people in my part of the world find that they cannot get jobs. If they have reached a certain age group, their chances of getting work are remote. In the metropolitan part of the west midlands—Birmingham, Walsall, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Wolverhampton and Solihull, the very heart of the west midlands—more than 40 people chase each vacancy. There is no sign that there will be a significant change as a result of present policies.
Of course, there has been no help for the construction industry. Eighty-one per cent. of building firms in the west midlands expect less work in the next 12 months and 78 per cent. of such companies expect to employ fewer people. That is the dismal scene. That is why we are so concerned. That is why we wanted a Budget for the country's future and not the future of the Conservative party.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps even in Beaconsfield, the constituency which the hon. Member who spoke before my hon. Friend represents but will not represent for much longer, there are many people who hated or disliked the

Budget? The hon. Gentleman has been disregarding them for years, but on 9 April he will get the message about the Budget loud and clear.

Mr. Winnick: One thing is absolutely clear: the Government will get the message on 9 April. We have been waiting for the election for some time. When the Prime Minister succeeded the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), he did not have the courage to go to the country. He did not have the courage to go to the country last June or in the autumn. Now, with only three months before he is forced to go to the country, he has screwed up enough courage to call the election. We welcome the election. I notice that, after the Budget, the latest opinion poll shows a 3 per cent. Labour lead.
The past 13 years have been a nightmare for Britain and its people and certainly for those who have suffered most such as the unemployed, the low-paid and pensioners. Time and again, in every Budget up to now, they have seen how a Tory Government have benefited the rich and penalised the poor. So we welcome the election. On 9 April, the people of Britain will decide.
When people ask me whether I am optimistic, I immediately go back to 1983 and 1987. Frankly, I do not deny, and my colleagues would not deny, that we knew that we stood no chance in those two elections. When we left the House of Commons, we knew only too well that the opinion polls were right and that, unfortunately, we would see the return of a Tory Government. But the people have now decided. That has been shown in by-elections and local elections. They want a change. They will vote Labour in millions more than they did in 1983 and 1987.
The Government are a dying Government. They will end their life on 9 April. We shall .have a Labour Government to determine the progressive policies to rebuild our country.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: In proceedings on the previous four Finance Bills on which I and my hon. Friends have served, we were able to tackle clause by clause and issue by issue the case that the Government made. We were able to table amendments. Through reasoned argument rather than weight of numbers, we secured change in those measures.
This occasion deprives us of the opportunity to secure any change in the measures before us. Indeed, it deprives us of the opportunity even to table amendments so that we can discuss the changes that we would like to see. That is a fundamentally undemocratic way to proceed. It is made much worse by the intervention by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), who is not in his place. He said that we should not discuss these matters and that the Finance Bill should be put through on the nod. That shows a complete contempt for the democratic process.
It was not surprising to me that, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury tried to justify these things, we could smell the flames of sulphur coming up around him. So confident is the Conservative party of the strength of its argument that it is bullying through a Bill of 11 clauses containing all the major tax changes, without allowing any opportunity to discuss amendments. It is putting the Bill through on a guillotine with only two hours of debate. That is not evidence that the Conservative party has great confidence in its arguments.
I should like to deal with several issues which arise from various clauses, but I cannot, so I shall concentrate on the main question, which is, of course, the lower rate tax band. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) asked why, if the Labour party believed in a lower rate tax band in the past and had a policy proposal to introduce one for the future, it intended to vote against such a proposal now. In asking the question, as he probably most certainly knows, he answers it.
The reason why we oppose the lower rate tax band is not because we are against it in principle. We are not. It is because we are against it now. We are saying that resources should not be borrowed, thereby effectively increasing the public sector borrowing requirement, to fund a tax giveaway. That is effectively what the Government are doing.

Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: No, I shall not give way, because time is short.
The Government argue that somehow the lower rate tax band can be afforded and will be repaid over the cycle. I return to the argument that I put to the Chancellor yesterday. The argument is set out in the Government's Red Book. The Government clearly say that there will be a public sector borrowing requirement for the forecastable future. In other words, there will be a PSBR over the cycle. On the Government's own evidence, the Budget will not be balanced over the cycle. An on-going, and in my view unhealthy, deficit is forecast for the future.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury had the cheek to say that we had changed our minds. [HON. MEMBERS: "What minds?"] I am talking about the minds. The hon. Gentlemen must keep quiet. What about the minds of Conservative Members? They always opposed the lower rate tax band on the grounds of cost and efficiency. They said that it would be too expensive. They opposed it because they said that they would prefer a streamlined tax system and did not agree with extra bands. They admired the elegance of the two rates, which in time they said they hoped to see reduced to one.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield argued previously against an extra tax band. He said that the eventual objective of the Conservative party—although one would not think it from reading the Red Book—was a 20 per cent. basic rate. He used to use that as an argument against lower rate bands. He now stands that argument on its head and uses it—as, of course, he has to—as an argument for lower rate bands.
The Conservative party always advances the argument that the tax rate for everyone should come down to 20 per cent. It does not argue for a special lower rate band. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) said when he abolished it that the case for the lower rate band was never clear. However, solely for reasons of expediency, it seems that the case is becoming clear to Conservative Members.
It is reasonable to ask why the Government are introducing the lower rate band. Are they doing it to help the poor? Does anyone really believe that the inventors of the poll tax are doing it to help the poor? There are much more tax-efficient ways of helping the poor. The Conservative party has not adopted those methods.
The Chancellor has claimed that every average single-earner family will gain £2·64 per week as a result of the Budget, but 72p of that is as a result of the annual indexation of allowances in line with inflation. Again, the quarter of a million people in tax-paying families on family credit gain less. They lose 70p in benefit for every £1 that they gain in tax cuts. Moreover, the increases in excise duties which we are voting through without amendment or any real chance of discussion will cost such people an extra £1·56 per week on average. So the result is a net loss for the low-paid of 76p per week.
In those circumstances, it is the most grotesque hypocrisy for the Conservative party to say that the lower rate band is intended to advantage the poor. It is clearly nothing of the kind. It is not intended to be anything of the kind. It is being introduced for one reason only—to confuse the debate about taxation in the run-up to the general election. It is intended specifically to confuse the debate about the Labour party's tax policies.
The Chief Secretary said that he wanted to hear the Labour party's Budget proposals. Of course, after the general election, the House will have an opportunity to discuss the Labour party's Budget. It will be formally presented to the House, with a proper Finance Bill. The measures will be discussed in detail, not bullied through on a guillotine. My only regret—I have to say that it is not an overwhelming regret—is that the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary will not be present to hear our Budget.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked why the important provisions on the unified business rate are not contained within the Bill. They relate to a tax introduced under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and not under an ordinary Finance Act. They would have to be amended by a separate Act, which we propose to introduce after we are re-elected.
On excise duties, and especially the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) in his valedictory remarks to the House, we have increased the differential between leaded and unleaded petrol. We have also increased, in cash terms, the differential between unleaded petrol and diesel. I hope that he finds that a welcome development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) mentioned car tax. He was right to do so, and I may be able to give some comfort. The reduction in car tax has been widely welcomed and I am happy to say that it has already given a substantial boost to the motor industry. In a few cases, as my hon. Friend pointed out, tax had already been paid by manufacturers and importers at the higher rate before the Budget. Some traders would therefore stand to lose.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that Customs and Excise have introduced an extra-statutory class concession to enable refunds of car tax to be made in respect of chargeable vehicles held by dealers as 10 per cent. tax-paid stock and unsold to final consumers on 10 March 1992. Those refunds will ensure that such vehicles will bear an effective car tax rate of 5 per cent., and will bring consistency of treatment to manufacturers and importers, who opt to deal on a tax-paid rather than a


tax-free, sale or return, basis. I hope that that announcement is welcome to the House, as I am sure it will be to the industry.
Much of the debate has focused on income tax. It is right that it should, and we have been treated to some remarkably dishonest speeches and some contempt by Opposition Members.
The Labour party asks us to believe that it now reckons that 25 per cent. is right for the basic rate of income tax. Labour Members tell us, hand on heart, that a Labour Government would not increase the basic rate of income tax. They say that 25 per cent. is just about right and that they will not put it up, adding, "There is no need to do so. We wouldn't want to do anything like that."
In that case, when we reduced the basic rate of income tax from 33p to 30p, why did Labour Members vote against it? Do they now admit that they were wrong to oppose that reduction? When we reduced the rate from 30p in the pound to 29p, why did they oppose it? Do they now admit that they were wrong? When we reduced the tax from 29p to 27p, they opposed it. Do they now admit that they were wrong and that we were right?

Mrs. Beckett: rose—

Mr. Maude: If the hon. Lady is prepared to stand up and admit that, every time that we reduced the basic rate of tax, they were wrong to oppose it, and to apologise to the House and to the country for what the Opposition have done, we will happily accept their apology.

Mrs. Beckett: Sadly, the Financial Secretary will not have the opportunity to repeat these remarks, but I recommend that he reads the book by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is now chairman of the Conservative party, in which he says that the case for further tax cuts has been much over-egged and that there should not be further tax cuts. At that stage, the top rate of income tax was 60p in the pound and the standard rate was 30p.

Mr. Maude: If that is the best that the hon. Lady can do by way of an apology to the nation, she has some further learning to do. Every time that the Government have properly reduced the basic rate of tax, Labour has opposed it. Now Labour Members say that they have changed and that they do not want to increase the basic rate. Why, then, did they oppose it? They owe the House and the country an apology, but the House and the country will not believe them. They know that a future Labour Government, like every other Labour Government in history, would increase the basic rate of income tax. We know that because they are giving a signal of it today. We are introducing a lower rate for the lower paid, as an important first step towards a 20 per cent. basic rate for everyone. What does the Labour party do? Labour Members say that they will increase the rate, despite the fact that it has been their stated policy to move towards it. They are saying that, although they believe that it is a good idea, they will oppose it because they want to increase the tax on the lower-paid.
As every Labour Government increased the basic rate of tax for everyone, a future Labour Government would do the same, because they do not know any other way. They would increase the basic rate of tax for the lower paid, the middle paid and the higher paid—for everyone

—because they believe that the money that people work hard to earn does not belong to the people. They believe that it belongs to the Government.
Every time a tax is reduced, the Opposition think that it is a giveaway. I have news for them, and the British people who work hard for their money have news for the Labour party: they believe that it is their money, and they want to decide how to spend it and what to do with it. That is what they are telling the Labour party.

It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion relating to the Finance Bill and Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill (allocation of time), MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER. put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order this day.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

CHARGE ETC. FOR 1992–93

Motion made and question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 325, Noes 143.

Division No. 11]
[1.36 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carrington, Matthew


Allason, Rupert
Carttiss, Michael


Amess, David
Cartwright, John


Amos, Alan
Cash, William


Arbuthnot, James
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ashby, David
Chapman, Sydney


Aspinwall, Jack
Churchill, Mr


Atkins, Robert
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Atkinson, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Colvin, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Conway, Derek


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bendall, Vivian
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cormack, Patrick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Couchman, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cran, James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Critchley, Julian


Body, Sir Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Curry, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Boswell, Tim
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Peter
Day, Stephen


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Devlin, Tim


Bowis, John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dicks, Terry


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dorrell, Stephen


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brazier, Julian
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Bob


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Dykes, Hugh


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Emery, Sir Peter


Buck, Sir Antony
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Budgen, Nicholas
Evennett, David


Burns, Simon
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Burt, Alistair
Fallon, Michael


Butler, Chris
Farr, Sir John


Butterfill, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy






Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lord, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


French, Douglas
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fry, Peter
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Gale, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gill, Christopher
Maclean, David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Madel, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Major, Rt Hon John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Malins, Humfrey


Gorst, John
Mans, Keith


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maples, John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marland, Paul


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marlow, Tony


Gregory, Conal
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Ground, Patrick
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mates, Michael


Hague, William
Maude, Hon Francis


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hannam, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Miller, Sir Hal


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mills, Iain


Harris, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, Sir David


Hawkins, Christopher
Moate, Roger


Hayes, Jerry
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hayward, Robert
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Moss, Malcolm


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hill, James
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Hind, Kenneth
Nelson, Anthony


Hordern, Sir Peter
Neubert, Sir Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Nicholls, Patrick


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Norris, Steve


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hunter, Andrew
Page, Richard


Irvine, Michael
Paice, James


Irving, Sir Charles
Patnick, Irvine


Jack, Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jackson, Robert
Pawsey, James


Janman, Tim
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jessel, Toby
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Portillo, Michael


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Price, Sir David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raffan, Keith


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Key, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Redwood, John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Riddick, Graham


Knowles, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knox, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Latham, Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Lawrence, Ivan
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rossi, Sir Hugh





Rost, Peter
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Rowe, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Thorne, Neil


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Thornton, Malcolm


Sackville, Hon Tom
Thurnham, Peter


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Trippier, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Trotter, Neville


Shelton, Sir William
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shersby, Michael
Walden, George


Sims, Roger
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waller, Gary


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Ward, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Speed, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Speller, Tony
Watts, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wheeler, Sir John


Squire, Robin
Whitney, Ray


Stanbrook, Ivor
Widdecombe, Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wiggin, Jerry


Steen, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Stern, Michael
Wilshire, David


Stevens, Lewis
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Yeo, Tim


Stokes, Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Summerson, Hugo
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Temple-Morris, Peter



NOES


Allen, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dixon, Don


Armstrong, Hilary
Dobson, Frank


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Edwards, Huw


Barron, Kevin
Enright, Derek


Battle, John
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beckett, Margaret
Faulds, Andrew


Beith, A. J.
Fisher, Mark


Bell, Stuart
Flannery, Martin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flynn, Paul


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Foster, Derek


Benton, Joseph
Fraser, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Blair, Tony
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boateng, Paul
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boyes, Roland
Gordon, Mildred


Bradley, Keith
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caborn, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Haynes, Frank


Clelland, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Henderson, Doug


Cohen, Harry
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Geraint


Cox, Tom
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Crowther, Stan
Hoyle, Doug


Cummings, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunningham, Dr John
Illsley, Eric






Janner, Greville
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Richardson, Jo


Kilfoyle, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey


Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Rooker, Jeff


Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leighton, Ron
Rowlands, Ted


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Terry
Sedgemore, Brian


Litherland, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Loyden, Eddie
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Short, Clare


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Michael, Alun
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Straw, Jack


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Turner, Dennis


Mowlam, Marjorie
Walley, Joan


Mullin, Chris
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Murphy, Paul
Wareing, Robert N.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


O'Brien, William
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


O'Hara, Edward
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Winnick, David


Patchett, Terry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)



Primarolo, Dawn
Tellers for the Noes:


Quin, Ms Joyce
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Radice, Giles
Mr. Ken Eastham.


Randall, Stuart

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill

Lords amendments agreed to. [One with Special Entry.]

Education (Schools) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [30th January) be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall he brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment made by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) if Mr. Speaker is satisfied that any remaining Lords Amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue such as is required to he authorised by resolution of the House under Standing Order No. 47 (Certain proceedings relating to public money) and that such charge has not been so authorised, he shall in accordance with Standing Order No. 76(3) (Lords Amendments deemed to be disagreed to) declare he is so satisfied and shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment;
(c) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(d) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question. That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

6.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

I hope that the Opposition will not claim that the Education (Schools) Bill has not been given full scrutiny by Parliament or that they require longer than the two hours that we are making available for the House to consider amendments made in another place. The Bill has had more than 40 hours of debate in the House and more than 30 hours of debate in the House of Lords.
I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will remind us that the Bill was guillotined on Report, but he should also remember that that was done in curious circumstances. We had first agreed that it would be reported in one day, but the first day was taken up with delaying tactics and most of the second day was taken up with talking about the guillotine motion. The Bill was, ultimately, fully debated in Standing Committee without any need for timetabling. The final sitting agreed for Committee discussion was not used and the Bill had more than 36 hours of Committee debate.
There was full debate on the Bill in another place. We responded to suggestions with flexibility and tabled amendments at the request of the Opposition, sometimes, in the other place. We have accepted the results of Divisions there that were carried against us. The Bill as it now stands should be reasonably non-controversial and widely welcomed, if the Opposition now support the fundamental aspects of the parents charter.
The Government were defeated twice in the House of Lords and propose to accept those defeats. I have with me the parents charter. The changes made in the House of Lords do not alter one word of the document. It has been


fought ferociously up and down the country by some elements of the Labour party, who have refused to distribute it to schools as they say that it is some sort of political document.
In so far as I understand the Labour party to have an education policy at all, I think that it is now converted to the idea of league tables for schools so that the public are aware of the comparative performances of different schools. I hope that it is converted to the idea of independent inspection and the notion that inspectors' reports should be sent unsolicited to parents.

Mr. Tony Banks: No.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: No.

Mr. Clarke: In that case, some members of the Labour party, including the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who speaks for one of the more reactionary sections of the Labour party, will continue to argue that education, at least in Newham, should remain a closed world without a great amount of information being given to parents or the public in that borough.

Mr. Banks: rose—

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I believe that we shall find that the country is anxious to receive the benefits of the parents charter and that we can now proceed, in a fairly rapid debate, to take the Bill on to the statute book. I admit that there are many issues to be encompassed by our debates. The Bill secures regular inspection to high standards; reasonable, published reports to parents; follow-up action by governors; and comparative tables of key information to parents. The changes made at this stage are largely those of organisation, not substance. The parents charter Bill is now ready for enactment.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that two of the most important aspects of the parents charter are that people will know the staying-on rates of children at school and, in districts such as London, they will also know the truancy rates?

Mr. Clarke: They will know the staying-on rates, the truancy rates and the examination results of all the schools so that it will be possible to compare the performances of all the schools that are in similar circumstances.
The hon. Members for Newham, North-West and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) exploded with rage when I mentioned those provisions, and appeared reluctant to have such information given to the parents of Newham.

Mr. Banks: rose—

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment, but that is all of a piece with the attitude of both those Newham Members who have used the difficulties in Stratford school as an excuse to try to get rid of Mrs. Snelling, who has done a great deal to improve that school. They are still demanding her head on a salver because she defied the Newham Labour party and Newham council by giving the school grant-maintained status, which she successfully achieved. Having criticised the voice of Newham when it barracked me, I shall give way to it.

Mr. Banks: I hope that I shall talk about Stratford school later in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I wanted to challenge the Secretary of State's reference to independent inspectors. Is he saying that, in that sense, Her Majesty's inspectorate is not independent? If so, that is a slur on HMI.

Mr. Clarke: HMI will continue to carry out inspections, and always would under the Government's proposals. HMI has never gone in for systematic inspection of all schools and reporting to parents. Indeed, it would have taken it more than 100 years to produce individual reports on primary schools at the rate at which it was going. The Government proposed that the inspection of schools should be carried out by inspectors registered with HMI—some would be local government inspectors, some would be outside consultants and experts approved by HMI.
We accepted amendments that proposed that HMI should have a veto over a school's choice of inspectors. Their lordships have taken the matter further and stated that HMI should not only register for the inspectors carrying out the systematic inspectors but should select the inspectors in the case of each school. The Government are prepared to accept that. I think that the principal practical difference will be that more schools will choose independent, non-local authority inspectors than would otherwise do so. HMI would be unlikely to choose local authority inspectors in every case, whereas the average body of school governors would be likely to choose the local authority inspectors in its district if the local authority had inspectors that come up to HMI standards, which quite a few local authority inspectors would do.

Mr. Derek Enright: That is a slur on local authority inspectors.

Mr. Clarke: Everyone considers local authority inspection to be patchy and of variable standards, and that has always been the opinion of HMI. I think that that view is widely accepted by those involved in the subject.
In future, under the Bill, all inspection will be carried out by people who comply with the criteria laid down by HMI and meet HMI standards. We are prepared to start on the basis that HMI will select the inspectors for each school. As a result, the parents charter Bill is now ready for enactment. It is a great change in the culture of education in this country. It has not been rushed through but has received all the necessary scrutiny. I hope that, now, the Opposition will not try to make it fall victim to time-wasting and delaying tactics.

Mr. Spearing: I confirm that my outburst and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was targeted not only at what the Secretary of State said but at the fact that he did not have the courtesy to give way. What he said about inspectors was clearly a reflection on the independence of the existing inspectorate. He may be quite right in saying that inspectors cannot go to all schools, but that is a different issue.
On the subject of what the Secretary of State asks of the inspectors, is he aware that, despite his ministerial colleague stating that Stratford school was working well—or words to that effect—the Secretary of State's answer to us was that the last time that an inspector of his


Department went into that school was 1991? If he has not received any reports on that school recently, how can he tell the House accurately how that school is progressing?

Mr. Clarke: If the outburst of the two hon. Members was caused by taking my reference to independent inspectors as an attack on Her Majesty's inspectorate, that was simply a complete misunderstanding on their part. The hon. Member for Newham, South will know that the Bill makes Her Majesty's inspectorate more independent of the Government than hitherto. In future, Her Majesty's chief inspector will be a much more powerful and independent watchdog figure than he was before and than he would be under Labour's proposals. The Labour party would promptly make him subordinate to a new quango of the great and the good and the usual educational interests that it proposes to set up. We are setting up the post of HMCI, who will have an important role in monitoring inspection of schools and advising the Government—that has never been threatened by the Bill. He will play a key role in the selection of those inspectors who carry out the parents charter type inspections of 6,000 schools a year and report to parents.
I have always believed that inspectors should be independent of schools. I do not think, as Labour appeared to believe until it voted otherwise in the House of Lords, that all the inspectors should be employed by a local authority to inspect only that local authority's schools and should then be expected to be critical of that local authority if there were failings when they reported to parents. The system that we envisage is much better and the whole education world will be opened up to much more independent, open scrutiny. That can only benefit the good schools and the many dedicated teachers we have, as it will identify weaknesses and correct them, and build on strengths school by school. That is why I hope that the Bill will proceed without any further delay of the rather absurd kind that we had on Report.

2 pm

Mr. Jack Straw: I am sorry to disappoint the Secretary of State, but we oppose this guillotine. If anybody wanted any convincing about our justification for opposing it, he need only look at the Amendment Paper and see that the Secretary of State is expecting the House to debate 38 groups of amendments and amendments to amendments in eight separate debates, and have votes, within a single hour. That shows an arrogance and a contempt of democratic procedures which have typified this Administration. The guillotine is doubly unacceptable, given that the Bill and the amendments were not delivered back to the House until this morning and hon. Members on both sides had only a few hours in which to table amendments to amendments and to consider the merits of amendments made in the other place.
The Secretary of State said that it had been agreed that the Report stage in the House of Commons should last one day. I should put it on record that there was never any such agreement either between the Front Bench teams or through the usual channels. Such an agreement was neither entered into nor even sought by the Minister of State or by the Government Whip. We ran into two days solely because of the incompetence of the Government Whips Office.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Opposition filibustered.

Mr. Straw: We had no need to do so, as 23 debates were to be squeezed into one day because of the incompetence of the Government Whips Office, who did not understand that there was no way in which those 23 debates could conceivably be contained within the six hours of debate allocated.
Thirteen years ago, this Administration came to power promising that they would "promote higher standards" in basic educational skills. Today, the public learned more of the truth of the Government's failure to achieve that promise and their neglect of a whole generation of the nation's young. A major study, including work by the National Foundation for Educational Research, shows Britain bottom of the class in terms of shortages of primary school books, almost bottom on shortages of secondary school books and just one from bottom on overcrowding of classrooms. We are in a worse position in comparison not only with our major competitors, but with Hungary, Portugal, Jordan and even Slovenia.
Four weeks ago, we learned in another NFER report that reading standards for seven-year-olds had shown an alarming decline of three months in the four years since 1987, when the latest and largest round of experiments on other people's children were introduced under the euphemism of "reforms". Last week, we saw the Secretary of State wriggling, squirming and blaming everyone but himself for yet another damning report by HMI, showing that 20 per cent. of children continue to be poorly taught in reading.
In an unusually candid admission last year, the Secretary of State told the House that after 12 years
we still lag behind our competitors in the participation of our school leavers in further education and training, and their achievement of useful qualifications."—[Official Report, 21 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 432.]
To answer that dismal record, the Secretary of State introduced his so-called parents charter and the Bill on which he is now seeking to curtail discussion. It was Lord Beloff—a Conservative peer, and one who, as the Secretary of State would concede, is no wet—said that the Bill was:
the silliest Bill that any Parliament has ever had to consider." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 February 1992; Vol. 535, c. 634.]
He went on to say that the other place had never been given "the slightest indication—"

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he cannot quote a Member of the other place who is not a Minister. Therefore, will he please paraphrase?

Mr. Straw: Certainly, I will paraphrase. He said—

Mr. Simon Burns: Paraphrase.

Mr. Straw: Of course I will paraphrase. I will do every justice to the noble lord. He considered that their lordships could see no sign of any thought having gone into the Bill. Should Conservative Members wish to ensure that my paraphrase is close to the words used, I refer them to the Official Report of the other place of 11 February 1992 at column 635.
Lord Beloff, whom I believe that the Secretary of State just described as dotty—I am sure that Lord Beloff will be interested to have that on the record, as it shows what little honour there is among those in the Conservative party


—was correct. As the elements of the Bill were examined in this House and in the other place, its core simply dissolved. The truly bizarre proposition was that schools should be allowed to pick, choose and pay their own inspectors from the ranks of private, money-making consultants, with the power of local education authorities to make inspections in schools when things went wrong removed altogether, and with HMI reduced in size and therefore in facility and ability from 475 members clown to 170.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Arthur Daley school of inspection.

Mr. Straw: I dare say that my hon. Friend has a few Arthur Daleys in his constituency.

Mr. Banks: That is all right so long as they vote for me.

Mr. Straw: I would expect nothing else, as I was brought up in the same area and I have some knowledge of, and affection for, such car dealers. I would far rather be on a desert island or in a voting booth with an Arthur Daley than I would with that lot on the other side.

Mr. Burns: Arthur Daley is on our side.

Mr. Straw: I think that even Arthur Daley would be ashamed by the claims that we shall hear from the Conservative party over the next four weeks.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I will give way on the Arthur Daley point.

Mr. Clarke: Given that this extraordinary description of the provisions appeared to satisfy one or two of the more eccentric of their lordships and also the hon. Gentleman, will he explain how Arthur Daley was meant to get the approval of HMI to get on the register of HMI in the first place so that he could be selected by the schools? Will he explain why HMI would not have used the veto given by the Bill to overrule an unwise choice by the school? As he knows, the amendment that has been carried in the Lords does not change a great deal other than the mechanics for selecting the inspectors.
While the hon. Gentleman quotes my noble Friend Lord Beloff in his general judgments of the Bill, is it not the case, when one moves off this provision, that the Labour party is now thinking of being in favour of league tables, outside inspections, reports to parents and all the other policies embodied in the Bill?

Mr. Straw: I shall deal with our policy in a moment. The Secretary of State shows an ignorance of the detail of his own Bill. The reason why Arthur Daley would have been able to slip through the original scheme was that only the registered inspectors—those in charge of each of the inspection teams—would have been subject to any scrutiny by HMI. That point was understood by both sides of this House and, more to the point, by both sides of the other place. Because there would be only 40 registered inspectors responsible for checking on up to 3,000 to 4,000 inspectors, all sorts of dodgy characters would be likely to get though the net.
The Secretary of State could not be bothered to serve on the Standing Committee. He always likes to travel light, and he had not bothered to consider the detail of the Bill. There were some extraordinary admissions in Committee

by the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State about freelance inspectors who would be roaming the country—[Interruption.] I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) here for what will be his last debate on education in this place.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I would not miss it for the world.

Mr. Straw: Of course not.
The proposal was for roaming, specialist inspectors who would be inspecting provision for the deaf in Devon one day and, if they could find a train, going to Durham the next day. The Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State admitted in Committee that schools would be allowed to pick and choose their inspectors according, not least, to the particular dogma that a school was following. I guess that the Under-Secretary of State has fled to Darlington to try to garner a few votes before his defeat on 9 April. I am surprised that he is not here, as he seemed very attached to the Bill. I wonder whether he will have much to say about it during the next four weeks.
The Under-Secretary of State made the stunning admission in Committee that if a school was following a kind of discredited dogma, which the Secretary of State certainly does not share, of having children sitting around tables not learning anything, with progressive education and all that, it could choose inspectors who shared that dogma. Quite what that would do to raise standards, I am not sure. No one could explain how such a Bill would raise standards. Virtually no Conservative Member with any knowledge of education, from left or right, volunteered anything in detailed support of the Bill.
One reason why it is preposterous for the Secretary of State to railroad the Bill through the House in the dying days of this Administration is that it has come back to us in a markedly different form. The other place inflicted two major defeats on the Secretary of State. We need much more time to consider those changes and their impact on the rest of the Bill. Amendment No. 111 in the other place—amendment No. 11 here—removes the right of schools to pick and choose their own inspectors and relaces it with a power for the senior chief inspector to appoint the inspectors.
As I said earlier, the Secretary of State travels light and does not pay attention to the detail. For a long time he misled himself, if nobody else, about the nature of Labour's policy on inspection. As became manifest in Committee, the officials had read the fine document, "Raising the standard", as had the two junior Ministers. The document sets out our proposals for an education standards commission which will take HMI under its wing, and for those inspectors on the commission to supervise and direct the work of local inspectors who would be at arm's length from the local authority. That proposal is fully consistent with amendment No. 111 in the other place. That is precisely why my noble Friends Baroness Blackstone and Lord Peston moved the amendment and those associated with it. Had the amendments been inconsistent with Labour policy, they would not have done that.
I understand from your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that rather than paraphrase I can directly quote a Minister in the other place. I am glad to have that approbation.

Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman is learning.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right about that. I always thought that the rule was the other way around, but now I know differently.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree—I hope that the Secretary of State does—that it is difficult to find any member of the general public, throughout the country, who agrees with the Bill? Almost the entire teaching profession is opposed to the Bill. It would be charming of the Secretary of State if he could tell us who, other than the Tory party—driven to the wall as it is—agrees with the Bill.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is exactly right. To encourage individuals and organisations to come forward, we offered a generous prize of a week in Europe to any Government Member who could name a single organisation that supported the Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) always accuses me of not studying Labour policy closely. I take out my microscope from time to time, to try to scrutinise it with considerable care, but it is difficult to see that speck of policy. The hon. Gentleman argues that the Bill, as amended in another place, is consistent with Labour policy. I assume that, despite the hon. Gentleman's wish to have more time to scrutinise the Bill, he supports the system of schools inspections as amended by Labour peers. I do not believe that is so, and that the amendment received Opposition support in another place because a collection of 1960s peers happened to be hidden away until half-past nine in the evening, when it was voted on. It does not bear the slightest relation to Labour's policy during the earlier stages of the Bill.
If the hon. Member for Blackburn is trying to persuade me that the Bill as amended is now consistent with the amazing document that Labour published, presumably he is also saying that it has Labour's approval.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State should hold himself, if he can.

Mr. Tony Banks: That would be more than he could bear, I should imagine.

Mr. Straw: Yes, but I was about to tell the Secretary of State that the Lords amendment was fully consistent with Labour policy. Regrettably, not every one of our amendments was carried, so the Bill is not in quite the shape that would allow us to support it.
I allowed the Secretary of State to intervene because I thought that he was going to pop up with the name of an organisation that supports the Bill—perhaps that which represents parents in his own constituency. The Bill is apparently meant as a parents charter, but the body that speaks more for parents than the Secretary of State is the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations. Two days ago, it wrote to all right hon. and hon. Members pleading with them to oppose the Bill because of its serious effects on our children; the NCPTA rightly believes that the Bill will damage children's education.
When the amendment was considered in another place the Minister of State, Baroness Blatch, said—I presume with the approval of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and according to a brief provided by the Department:
The amendment seeks to tear the heart out of the Bill by substituting a centralised regime in place of a system based upon choices by governing bodies. The noble Baroness"—

Baroness Blackstone—
said that I would be likely to proclaim this a wrecking amendment. It is just that. It would replace the Government's preferred scheme with another scheme … it totally invalidates the scheme which is set out in the Bill … I want Members of the Committee to realise that the amendment removes a key element of our proposals, namely that those choosing the inspectors should also be responsible and publicly answerable both for the current state of the school and for taking action on the recommendations which flow from the inspections."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 March 1992; Vol. 536, c. 662.]
The following morning, in a radio interview, the Secretary of State blamed the trade unions for the Government's defeat in another place—though how they managed that, no one quite knows. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is usually fluent even when he has a weak case—and a great deal more fluent at any time than the Prime Minister. However, on the "Today" programme, he was apoplectic to the point of incoherence. Asked whether he ought not to be grateful to the Lords for saving him from an act of folly, he said that
we are intending, as the Labour Party … to the object … in face of objections from the Labour Party, to open up inspection to the outside world.
He spent the rest of the interview burbling, trying to explain away the depth of his defeat in the House of Lords. The BBC transcript is an accurate reflection of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said and how he said it.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: rose—

Mr. Straw: I will give way to the Secretary of State in a moment. Even the Daily Express—which normally takes orders from Conservative central office like a lamb—deserted him. Its editorial on Wednesday told him to think again, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman went to ground on the Thursday. The House and the country having been told that the Lords amendments tore the heart out of the Bill and removed a key element of the Government's proposals, it was on the Friday that the right hon. and learned Gentleman issued an incredible and laughable statement in which he said that he would accept the amendments. He said that they were only minor matters in the context of the inspection of schools. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will explain what change took place between the Minister of State saying that the amendments would tear the heart out of the Bill and the Secretary of State, saying that they were only minor matters.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: First, I advise the hon. Gentleman to get a better audio typist. He keeps insisting that I was apoplectic with rage—that is always his description—but I was rather amused by the farcical performance in the other place, with so many Labour and Liberal peers rushing out of bars in the middle of the evening to vote for an amendment which I continue to insist bore not the slightest resemblance to Labour party policy before that day. The hon. Gentleman continues to claim a great triumph, but if he reads the parents charter from cover to cover he will understand that the two great victories in the other place do not change a word in the charter. I am still waiting to hear which bit of the charter the Labour party is still against, if it is continuing to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State did not answer the question that I put to him. I asked him how an amendment which apparently tore the heart out of the Bill turned into


a minor matter on Friday last week. The amendment did tear the heart out of the Bill, and I suspect that it tore a bit of the heart out of the Secretary of State.
The other amendment that was agreed to in another place reflected an argument that was resisted almost to the bitter end in this place. It took up the sensible suggestion that in some circumstances local education authorities should be given power to inspect between cyclical inspections to fill the void in the orginal scheme presented in the Bill.
Other parts of the Bill are as objectionable as they were when the measure was first introduced. It is now riven by an incoherence between those parts of it that would implement Labour policy and those that contain the undiluted dogma of the Conservative right. There is a need for more time so that we can try to bring together the two parts of the strange animal with which we are left.
I will again paraphrase the words of Lord Beloff, who was damning of the idea of what could be described as commercial inspections of schools. However, commercial inspection, or the privatisation of the inspectorate, remains in the Bill, as does the emasculation of the inspectorate. For example, clause 15 provides that a local authority's inspection service must be entirely self-financing from the tenders, if any, that it wins under the four-year cycle of inspection. If an authority fails to win sufficient tenders, there can be no local inspection service in a given area. There is no power and no funding arrangement to run a local inspection service if the local authority does not win tenders.
Amendment No. 21 would provide the local education authority with power to inspect between cyclical inspections, but that has to be inspection by an officer of the local authority. I ask the Secretary of State whether that officer can be one of the LEA inspectors, if there is a self-financing LEA inspection service. If there is not, where will the expertise come from? The amendment is explicit. It provides, as I have said, that inspections must be undertaken by officers of the authority. In areas where there is no local authority inspection service, we are likely to end up with inspectors without the necessary expertise having to try to inspect schools where there are problems. Those are crucial issues that we do not have time to debate.

Mr. Spearing: Can my hon. Friend confirm that that leads to the conclusion that all these measures to diminish or even eliminate local authority inspection, whatever their merits, have been introduced by the Secretary of State to pave the way for the disappearance of local education authorities altogether? Has the Secretary of State ever denied that that is his real purpose?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is a very good idea.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Lady, who is always ahead of the Secretary of State, says that it is a very good idea.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It would be a good idea in Lancashire.

Mr. Straw: On the front page of The Times this morning, there is an article stating that the Secretary of State has it in mind to replace local education authorities with a new, centralised bureaucracy to run those schools that have opted out. At a time when everybody else is devolving the administration of education and giving

power to local communities, we find that the Secretary of State for Education and Science is introducing new systems of centralised control.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman used the word "bureaucracy". As he well knows, I have been visiting the schools in my constituency where, time after time, headmasters have said to me that they could not imagine what the county ever did with that money. They also said that they are using the money that they have been given to spend on administration to do all sorts of other things. They told me that they wonder what on earth the county did with that money when it had it. The trouble was that the bureaucracy was so overweening. We should be delighted to get rid of the Lancashire education authority.

Mr. Straw: The only reason why the hon. Lady wants to get rid of Lancashire education authority is that her party failed to win control of Lancashire in successive county elections.
The Secretary of State spoke at length about the parents charter leading to the provision of information to parents. Our position on that is clear. To answer a direct question that he put to me, we did not vote in Committee against clause 16 stand part. Had he wished to salvage the wreckage of the Bill by getting rid of the ludicrous arrangement that we have ended up with for inspection, by including a provision that would have allowed information to be given, he could have had the Bill. The Secretary of State must have been aware of that, because we did riot vote against clause 16. He could have had the Bill, despite the fact that clause 16, for all the propaganda that he has tried to make out of it, provides few additional information-giving powers on top of those provided for in the 1986 and 1988 Acts. He knows that the powers that he has already exercised in respect of the provision of information on the key stage 1 tests derive from the 1988 Act, not from the Bill.
What makes an even greater mockery of this guillotine is the fact that, in my view, no sensible Government would begin to implement the dog's breakfast of an inspection system provided for in the Bill. When we form the next Government, we shall move quickly to establish, by means of our educational standards Bill, an education standards commission which will be powerful and independent of Ministers. It will report to Parliament and bring within its ambit Her Majesty's inspectorate. Moreover, it will supervise and direct the local inspectorate. It will also inspect local education authorities. That will provide parents and governors with new guarantees of education standards for their children and with real power to seek redress from the commission when standards fall.
I hope that during the next four weeks the Secretary of State will not try to con people about the independence of the inspectorate under his proposals. He is the person who will be given the power in the Bill to appoint the senior chief inspector. I hope that he has taken time to find out about the headhunting that is going on for the new senior chief inspector. To my certain knowledge, all kinds of people with absolutely no knowledge or experience of education are being approached by these headhunters to put themselves forward as potential candidates for the job.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Under Labour's proposals, which the hon. Gentleman always accuses me of neglecting and failing to study, Her Majesty's inspectorate would be made subordinate to the new quango that would be set up. HMI


would be made less independent than it has ever been in its history. It is absurd for the hon. Gentleman to defend the independence of a body that he proposes to destroy, if he is ever able to implement his manifesto.

Mr. Straw: I suggest that the Secretary of State talk to the First Division Association which represents Her Majesty's inspectors and has said on the record—

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is a union.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State says that it is a union, but it represents virtually every one of Her Majesty's inspectors. Of course, they are placed in a difficult position because they are officials and it is difficult for them to speak out. I shall not quote the comments of any individuals because they are officials and answerable to the Secretary of State. That is the constitutional position, but I am entitled to quote the First Division Association which represents them and has excoriated the proposals on behalf of the inspectors, 95 per cent. of whom are members of the FDA. It believes that our proposals would greatly strengthen the independence of the inspectorate, and I shall tell the Secretary of State why.
When the Secretary of State sits on the Opposition Benches dealing with the education standards Bill, it will become clear to him that under our proposals the constitutional position of the senior chief inspector and Her Majesty's inspectors will be similar to the relationship between, for example, the controller of the Audit Commission and the Audit Commission, or that between the Comptroller and Auditor General in the House and the Public Accounts Committee.
Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, we have said that the appointment of a senior chief inspector under the Bill should first be subject to approval by the Civil Service Commission, a proposal which was resisted, and to submission to the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, which was also resisted. If the Secretary of State had been interested in ensuring that the senior chief inspector was independent, he would have accepted at least one of those modest safeguards. Every inspector knows that it was the Secretary of State's intention to emasculate and undermine the inspectorate because it has told the truth year after year about the failure of the Government's policies in the past 13 years.
The Times this morning carries an interview with the Secretary of State. It begins:
Ministers have failed to convince the public that their education reforms are necessary to raise standards in state schools, Kenneth Clarke, the education secretary, has admitted.
The Secretary of State need look no further than himself and his Government if he wants to know the reasons for his failure to convince. No Secretary of State for Education and Science has been less popular with teachers, parents or the public than this one. No education policies have received less popular support than those of this Government, and there has rarely been a bigger gap between the levels of public support for the Conservatives' education policies and support for ours. No other Bill to privatise the inspectorate of local schools and to emasculate Her Majesty's inspectorate could do more damage to standards in schools.
The guillotine motion is a fitting epitaph for a dying Administration, whose educational failure is now admitted even by Ministers who perpetuated their wretched policies and allowed our education record to become a national humiliation. For that, they will be driven from office on 9 April.

Mr. Tony Banks: I oppose the guillotine motion—I usually do oppose them—but I shall be happy for the guillotine to be working overtime on Tory heads on 9 April. I shall be happily knitting new Labour party policies as their heads fall into the buckets of sawdust.
On 10 March, I presented a Bill that provided for fixed-term elections, for compulsory attendance at polling stations and for a public holiday on general election day. I gave 9 April as the Second Reading date. I can only assume that that announcement caused the Prime Minister to panic and to announce the general election for 9 April. However, it raises one significant point.
What we have seen this morning is no way to run a country. During the business statement on Thursday last week, the Leader of the House announced the business knowing full well that the business being announced would not be played out in the House. I am not suggesting that that was dishonesty on his part. I suppose that he had no choice but to announce it, although we all knew that we would end up with this unholy, miserable shambles as a way of trying to get legislation through the House. This is not the way to do it.
Guillotines are never satisfactory, although one can understand that .they might be necessary in certain circumstances. When guillotines are brought in simply because the Government have now decided that there is no alternative but to go for an election on 9 April, we see clearly that party interest is being put before the national interest. It is about time to raise the wider issue of fixed-term Parliaments, which would certainly mean that no Parliament would end in this way, in this—

Mr. Straw: Shambles.

Mr. Banks: —in this undignified shambles, as my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Straw: Does my hon. Friend also accept that, if we had fixed-term Parliaments, discussions on such a Bill might not end without anyone present to represent the Liberal Democratic party? In view of what the Liberal Democrats said about the Bill, is it not extraordinary that not one of them is here now?

Mr. Banks: That is a good point, although I assume that the Liberal Democrats have a much larger mountain to climb than most other hon. Members, and have rushed off in a panic to try to garner a few votes.
This is not the way to run a Parliament, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—soon to be Prime Minister—made it clear at the Labour party conference that the Labour Government will introduce fixed-term Parliaments. That was a significant constitutional announcement, although it did not get the sort of coverage that it should have had. A Prime Minister in waiting is saying that when he is in office, he will give up a power that Prime Ministers have hitherto


clutched jealously to themselves, and treated as precious—the ability to decide when to hold an election, in order to maximise party advantage.
One cannot blame a Prime Minister for maximising party advantage, but it is unseemly and undignified. It undermines democracy and gives rise to much cynicism among the electorate when they see what is going on. The Prime Minister loitered so long that, had he been the former Director of Public Prosecutions, he would have been arrested for loitering with intent. However, he was the Prime Minister and he could choose his time to the best of his ability—although even then he managed to box himself into a corner.
I oppose the guillotine and hope that, in the next Parliament, with a Labour Government, fixed-term Parliaments will be introduced. Then no Parliament will end in this sort of shambles.
I understand that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will be a player in the next Parliament—as the new Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that he would make a good Leader of the Opposition, and I am sure that in the new Parliament he—or whoever else becomes the Leader of the Conservative Opposition—will make a lot of noise about the curtailment of discussion on radical measures of great significance.
I believe that one of the reasons why the Bill has encountered such problems in the House of Lords has something to do with Stratford school in my constituency. The problems arose when their lordships started considering the idea of so-called independent inspectors being appointed by schools. Can the Secretary of State imagine what sort of inspector would have been appointed by the existing governors of Stratford school if the original provisions of his Bill had become law?
The Secretary of State should think carefully about the matter, because the Education Reform Act 1988 was also guillotined, and it was clear then that the Government had not thought through what might happen if a situation arose such as that involving Stratford school. There were no provisions to deal with that possibility, and now the Secretary of State finds himself in a corner over Stratford school. We have asked the following question many times, but I shall ask it again. Why was Stratford school allowed to opt out, and grant-maintained status given, whereas Walsingham school, in Wandsworth, was refused?
I remind the Secretary of State that about 96 per cent. of parents at Walsingham school in Tory Wandsworth voted to opt out. The proposal was overwhelmingly supported by parents and governors at the time, yet it was turned down. Why? Walsingham school, like Stratford school, was facing closure. Will the Secretary of State tell me why Walsingham school was turned down, yet Stratford school was allowed to opt out?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, when parents vote in favour of opting out, the matter comes to Ministers for decision. Ministers allow some applications and disapprove others according to the best judgment we can make in the light of consultations about the likely success of the school. In the case of Stratford school, the judgment was plainly correct. Mrs. Snelling and her staff have built up a rundown school from 150 to 600 pupils. They plainly have the support of the overwhelming majority of parents, and they are raising educational standards in the area.
Does it remain the position of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that Mrs. Snelling should be sacked? I understand that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—I accept that they come from a rather different direction from some of the governors—are as anxious as some of the governors that Mrs. Snelling should be removed from the school. They believe that the school should be returned to Newham and closed because they are so furious that Mrs. Snelling divided Newham Labour party and was one of those who took the school successfully to grant-maintained status.

Mr. Banks: I will answer that point, but I must come back to the original question I posed, which the Secretary of State did not answer. Of course I know that the Secretary of State had discretion to refuse or accept an opt-out proposal. The fact is that the two schools did not face closure because of vindictive local authorities. The two local authorities are completely different. Both schools faced closure under reorganisation proposals set out by Lord Joseph, the then Secretary of State, so that both authorities should reduce surplus places.
Stratford school did not face closure because anyone wanted to close it. Closing a school, like a hospital, is not popular. The Secretary of State knows that. We did not want to close the school. To get two new schools in the south of the borough in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), where the population is growing, it was necessary to close the school. We were doing what the Government wanted us to do.
We visited the then Minister of State and put it to her that the parents thought—we do not blame the parents—that they could prevent the closure by going for opt-out. Surely even the Secretary of State at the time of the 1988 legislation did not think that opt-out would be used as a way in which to avoid a reorganisation accepted by his Departmenmt. That is the point. When we saw the Minister of State, she was very reasonable, and we came away expecting that the school would close because it was required to close.
We then saw the completely different approaches which the Department adopted to Walsingham school and to Stratford school. We came to the obvious conclusion that political dogma was at play. That is what it was all about. I have no dobut that the then Prime Minister threw a bit of a trantrum, and started handbagging the Secretary of State and saying that there were insufficient closures in Labour areas.
We had a change of junior Ministers, and the present Minister of State was brought in to deliver an opt-out. He delivered the opt-out in Stratford in my constituency, which is a solid Labour area where the Tories have nothing to lose. We have a lot to lose. Community relations in our area are suffering. That has nothing to do with the local authority. It has to do with the arguments between the governors, the head teacher and the staff.
The Secretary of State talked about the school being built up again from 160 pupils. It was being run down because we were taking pupils out and putting them in other schools in preparation for the closure. That is what it is all about.
I will address the question put to me by the Secretary of State. I said—this is my opinion as the constituency Member, not the opinion of the Labour party—that,


because of the bitterness created by the decision, which now floods through the area, it would be in the best interests of the children and of the community if the governors and the senior staff concerned stood down so that we could start again. There will be no vindictiveness by the local authority. Why should we want to be vindictive?
When we have a Labour Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Staw) is Secretary of State, we shall expect to see a number of things. The first is a full HMI inspection of the school to see exactly what is going on. We do not even know what is going on in the school at the moment, because, as the Secretary of State admitted, there has not been an inpection since 4 December 1991. There must be a full inspection. Stratford school must then be returned to the control of the local community.
The Secretary of State and other Ministers portray local authorities as alien forces imposed upon us by a totalitarian regime. In fact, they are bodies of people elected by the local community. If Conservative Members do not like the fact that some local authorities are Labour controlled, it is up to them to do something about it within the democratic system. People in Newham do not vote Tory, because they do not like Tories. They can hardly be blamed for that. My constituency is a Tory-free zone and will remain so for the foreseeable future, for no other reason than that the people of my area cannot see anything that the Tories can usefully do for them.
Another question that I want to ask the Secretary of State is this: was he advised by his own civil servants at the time of the application for the Stratford opt-out that it was non-viable and should not he allowed? I should like him to answer that question yes or no, because I have asked it in the House a dozen times, and no one has answered it.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Ministers do not give answers about advice that they receive from their civil servants. That is a convention which Ministers in any Government will always defend. If the hon. Gentleman is asking about the judgment that the application was viable, which was the judgment made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and me, I can only say that events have vindicated that judgment. The number of children in the school has grown from 150 to 600, and the parents are backing Mrs. Snelling and the staff, who are presiding over a steady improvement in standards.
The difficulty is that, when the opt-out decision was taken, Newham council launched personal attacks on Mrs. Snelling, took property from the school and barred the then governors when they wanted to go in to prepare for the take-over. The hon. Gentleman and his allies in the council still demand the removal of Mrs. Snelling, but the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is so doubtful about the bona fides of some of his supporters in the council that he yesterday made it clear that, in the unlikely event of our having a Labour Government, he would feel it necessary to pass legislation to protect some of the people involved in grant-maintained schools against the kind of personal come-back that they would otherwise get from some Labour councils.

Mr. Banks: The Secretary of State is misleading the House, and he is certainly misleading himself, if he believes

the rubbish that he has just come out with. What is the point of stirring up trouble in one's own constituency? Why would we deliberately cause trouble in our own area? It is nonsense to suggest that. Neither the local authority nor my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has said that Mrs. Snelling should be removed as the head teacher of Stratford school. What I have said is that, in the interests of everyone and in an attempt to return to some sort of equitable basis, we should ask all the main players—which I say means the head teacher, senior staff and governors—to stand down in the interests of the kids and of my school.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the position clear. Is it not true, however, that the Secretary of State has not been using the independent inspectorate that is available to him in the past two months? The Minister of State claimed last week that the school was now running well. How can Ministers make such statements when the Secretary of State has not used the offices of the independent inspectorate—which he agrees is independent—to find out the facts? Does not that show added irresponsibility on the part of the Secretary of State?

Mr. Banks: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State has just parroted a load of allegations about Newham council and the school, but he cannot possibly know anything about it, as neither he nor his Ministers have been anywhere near the school, and as the inspectors have not been anywhere near the school. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be getting the information from the newspapers or from a few Tory parents in the area. He is certainly not getting the facts, and he will not send the inspectors in to find out exactly what is going on in the school.
What is happening at Stratford school is disastrous. I used regularly to visit that school and brought pupils from it to the House. The pupils are now going home in tears, seeing their school crawled over not by Ministers but by the media. They see the police there daily because of the threats of violence. There is an atmosphere of intimidation. That is not the way to run education in Stratford or anywhere else, and the Secretary of State stands condemned for having created that situation in Stratford.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that Her Majesty's inspectors went to the school in December. He will also know that one of the two governors whom I have appointed is the recently retired senior chief inspector from HMI. He is a very respected public servant, with whom I have an excellent working relationship and in whose judgment I trust.

Mr. Banks: The point has still not been addressed that the inspectors went in on 4 December and it is now 13 March. The Secretary of State is being negligent of his duties by not having ordered them to go in.
I realise that the time is now drawing to a close. However, in the circumstances of this guillotine motion, remembering the mistakes that the Secretary of State made in 1988, he should withdraw the motion and allow us to proceed properly and discuss the various amendments.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 72.

Division No. 112]
[2.49 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Alexander, Richard
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fishburn, John Dudley


Amess, David
Fookes, Dame Janet


Amos, Alan
Forman, Nigel


Arbuthnot, James
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forth, Eric


Ashby, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Aspinwall, Jack
Fox, Sir Marcus


Atkinson, David
Franks, Cecil


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
French, Douglas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fry, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Gale, Roger


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gardiner, Sir George


Bellingham, Henry
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gill, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Body, Sir Richard
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Peter
Gorst, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bowis, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gregory, Conal


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brazier, Julian
Ground, Patrick


Bright, Graham
Hague, William


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hannam, Sir John


Buck, Sir Antony
Hargreaves, A (B'ham H'll Gr')


Budgen, Nicholas
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Burns, Simon
Harris, David


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Alan


Butler, Chris
Hawkins, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayward, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James


Churchill, Mr
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Irvine, Michael


Critchley, Julian
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jackson, Robert


Curry, David
Janman, Tim


Davies, Q (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dicks, Terry
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knowles, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knox, David


Evennett, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Farr, Sir John
Latham, Michael





Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rowe, Andrew


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shelton, Sir William


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maclean, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Speed, Keith


Madel, David
Speller, Tony


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maples, John
Squire, Robin


Marland, Paul
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marlow, Tony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stern, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stevens, Lewis


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin
Sumberg, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


Miller, Sir Hal
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mitchell, Sir David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moate, Roger
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thornton, Malcolm


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thurnham, Peter


Morrison, Sir Charles
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moss, Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Tredinnick, David


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Trippier, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walden, George


Norris, Steve
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walters, Sir Dennis


Page, Richard
Ward, John


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Warren, Kenneth


Patnick, Irvine
Watts, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, Sir John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Ray


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wiggin, Jerry


Portillo, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Price, Sir David
Wilshire, David


Raffan, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wood, Timothy


Rathbone, Tim
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Yeo, Tim


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Riddick, Graham
Younger, Rt Hon George


Ridsdale, Sir Julian



Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. David Lightbown and


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Mr. John M. Taylor.


NOES


Anderson, Donald
Armstrong, Hilary


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)






Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Meale, Alan


Barron, Kevin
Michael, Alun


Beckett, Margaret
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Beith, A. J.
Morgan, Rhodri


Blair, Tony
Mowlam, Marjorie


Boateng, Paul
O'Hara, Edward


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Callaghan, Jim
Patchett, Terry


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Pendry, Tom


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Prescott, John


Cohen, Harry
Quin, Ms Joyce


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Richardson, Jo


Corbyn, Jeremy
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cousins, Jim
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Cox, Tom
Ruddock, Joan


Crowther, Stan
Sheerman, Barry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dixon, Don
Short, Clare


Eastham, Ken
Skinner, Dennis


Enright, Derek
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Faulds, Andrew
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Fisher, Mark
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Flannery, Martin
Soley, Clive


Flynn, Paul
Spearing, Nigel


Foster, Derek
Straw, Jack


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Gordon, Mildred
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Hain, Peter
Wareing, Robert N.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hoyle, Doug
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Livingstone, Ken
Mr. Frank Haynes and


McWilliam, John
Mr. Ray Powell.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Order of the House [30th January] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph I above

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment made by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) if Mr. Speaker is satisfied that any remaining Lords Amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue such as is required to be authorised by resolution of the House under Standing Order No. 47 (Certain proceedings relating to public money) and that such charge has not been so authorised, he shall in accordance with Standing Order No. 76(3) (Lords Amendments deemed to be disagreed to) declare he is so satisfied and shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment;
(c) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—


(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown. That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(d) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment move by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposal.

Supplemental

6.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Education (Schools) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

FUNCTIONS OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR FOR ENGLAND

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 1, leave out ("and")

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may also discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 6, 7, 13 and 14.

Mr. Clarke: I shall speak with comparative brevity on the amendments, which 1 recommend to the House, because we are restricted on time. The Opposition have spent the first hour of the two hours available to us this afternoon protesting about the lack of time to consider the Bill. Had they not protested at such length, they could have spent two hours on the Bill's terms. The progress of discussions on the Bill has been bedevilled in that way before. The fact is that they have little to say about it. They prefer to occupy the time available by arguing about procedure because an hour would be difficult to fill if the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) sought to express his full thoughts on the matter before us.
I trust that the amendments will not be especially controversial. They were tabled by the Government, in response to concerns in another place that, under the Bill as drafted, it might have been possible for chief inspectors and registered inspectors to neglect to report on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils. The amendments were suggested from the Cross Benches and were accepted with support from both sides.
Although those matters were mentioned in section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988, as essential purposes of the school curriculum, and although inspectors are already required to report on educational quality and standards, the Bill did not expressly draw attention to them. The amendments place clearly on the face of the Bill a duty for inspectors to report on those important matters.
Parents will receive an objective assessment of what their children's schools do to ensure that a pupil's development is encouraged and of how effectively they meet their aims. I stress that we are not asking inspectors to judge what values a school espouses, but only to report on how such matters are tackled.
I believe that the amendments are acceptable and recommend that the House agree with them.

Mr. Jack Straw: It does not lie in the mouth of the Secretary of State to complain about shortage of time, although no doubt he will do so, because the guillotine is his. He determined that we should have such little time.
We, too, support the amendments, which are sensible. As the Secretary of State said, they clarify a matter which was of some concern to their lordships.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 15, leave out "on matters of good practice"

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 8.

Mr. Clarke: Let me make it clear that I am not complaining about the lack of time; I am merely pointing out that these guillotines come to the Opposition's rescue. They could not fill the time if we allowed an open-ended debate.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: I will in just a second.
On the Further and Higher Education Bill, for example, we passed a guillotine with the most generous provision of time, but I understand that the Committee adjourned for lengthy dinners and early nights and did not occupy the time provided. There is a paucity of policy from the Opposition. As far as I can see, they do not seriously disagree with the Bill, although the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) goes rambling off on his standards commission and the rest. We need a guillotine to save the Opposition from the embarrassment of lengthy debates on these matters.

Mr. Haynes: I am not surprised at the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaking in that fashion. He appears to be in a hurry. He was not in a hurry to go upstairs and sit in on the Committee stage of the Bill. Now he has the opportunity to talk about the Bill and to put us in the picture about what it is all about, so that we understand. There is no need for him to rush. He can take his time.

Mr. Clarke: I am taking my time because I do not think that the Opposition have anything to occupy the hour which they are determined to occupy and which is left to them under the guillotine procedure. The Bill went through the Committee smoothly. I think that the hon. Gentleman was a member of it.

Mr. Haynes: The Secretary of State was not on the Committee.

Mr. Clarke: I was not on it. It is interesting that the official Opposition Members on the Standing Committee did not press the policy that was eventually carried by their noble Friends. When Labour and Liberal peers in another place carried an amendment in an ambush in the course of an evening, the Labour party appeared gratefully to grasp it as a policy. The Government have agreed to it, with the result that the Bill will reach the statute book in a short time.
The amendments should give rise to little controversy. They remove from the Bill the specific suggestion that chief inspectors must give guidance to registered inspectors on matters of good practice in relation to the carrying out of school inspections and the writing of inspection reports. The Opposition in another place suggested the amendments, which commanded general support.
The qualification that stood previously in the Bill was superfluous and the amendments are in keeping with the independent role that we have given to Her Majesty's chief inspector through the Bill's provisions. Both the hon. Member for Blackburn and I place weight on the independence of HMCI. My contention is that the Bill


with the amendments gives HMCI greater independence than previous holders of such an office have ever enjoyed. The hon. Gentleman's policy, explained a few moments ago, would make the inspector subject to a new quango. The inspector would lose the right to report directly to the Secretary of State; he would do so indirectly through the quango. Under Labour's proposals, HMI would lose its independence in a way that cannot be compared with what has happened at any time in its long, distinguished history.
It is wrong to suggest that the Bill was introduced by me or any of my right hon. or hon. Friends out of hostility to HMI. The Bill places HMI in a new key role and gives greater independence to that office than it has ever had before. The amendments are consistent with the Government's policy.

Mr. Haynes: I do not know whether the Secretary of State will get away with that. He argues in the same way every time. He knows as well as we do—[Interruption.] I am referring to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, not to you Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. David Lightbown): Order.

Mr. Haynes: It is the hon. Gentleman who is out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am on my feet, not one of the Government Whips.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has always complained about inspectors' reports on schools because to his mind they have gone in the wrong direction. The inspectors have often been critical of the Government's policy on schools. After the inspectors visit the schools and submit their report, the Government hide it for I do not know how long before we can see the damned thing.

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. Haynes: I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He cannot be allowed to get away with what he just said. He has a lot to learn, as he will be in opposition when he gets back in, if he gets back in.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman and I will behave with our usual courtesy towards each other in what are, I regret to say, his last days in the House. I shall miss him when he ceases to represent Ashfield, which is so near my constituency.
The hon. Gentleman made a wild allegation, which is untypical of him, that in the past I had criticised HMI reports. During my entire time in office I have never disagreed with any of HMI's reports. I have published them and I have agreed with them, although I may not always have agreed with the interpretations placed on some of them by my political opponents. I have never objected to the advice that I have received from HMI or to its reports, and it is a complete myth to claim that I have. The Bill strengthens HMI; it does not weaken it.

Mr. Haynes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must not travel down that road. I thought that I had made my swan-song last night, but he pulled me into the debate—he always pulls me in with the comments that he makes. He cannot kid me about the inspectorate and its reports. He might not have said what I claimed at the Dispatch Box, as that would have embarrassed him, but it has been said elsewhere. The right hon. and learned Gentleman

must not shake his head. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I know what has been going on in relation to the inspectorate and we know that that is why the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to transfer it to the private sector—he wanted to have control over them.

Mr. Straw: I am even sorrier that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is leaving this place. He may have just made his last speech, although there are proceedings in the House on Monday and perhaps he will be here to intervene—

Mr. Haynes: I shall be here on Monday.

Mr. Straw: Good, we shall look forward to even more speeches from my hon. Friend before Parliament finally dissolves.
The Secretary of State protested again that he had not come up with the extraordinary, bizarre Bill to privatise the inspectorate as part of a scheme to undermine HMI's independence. He has never explained satisfactorily to anyone how on earth a Bill designed to emasculate HMI and reduce its numbers from more than 470 to 175 would do anything but severely weaken HMI's position. Large numbers of Her Majesty's inspectors were to be made redundant or moved away, their powers were to be withdrawn and, more importantly, 150 years of experience were to be destroyed by the Secretary of State. He knows that.
The only reservation that I have about pursuing the allegation that the Secretary of State made the proposal in order to undermine the inspectorate is that it suggests that there is some coherence behind the reasons for the Bill. I and most others suspect that the Secretary of State never thought that he would have to present the measure to the House. He was asked to write the parents charter as part of the Prime Minister's wheeze at about this time last year—an allegedly winning agenda for the autumn election. The Secretary of State found himself having to say something about the so-called parents charter at the end of July.
Very late in the day—even after advertisements had been placed for a replacement for Eric Bolton—a review of the inspectorate was set up. Before the review was over, the Secretary of State announced the decision on it.
There is a curious resemblance between the madcap scheme in the Bill and a seven-page pamphlet written by the right-wing ideologues in Wandsworth, including the chief inspector, Mr. John Burchall. He wrote a pamphlet for the Centre for Policy Studies proposing the privatisation of the inspectorate and the emasculation of HMI. The original Bill and the pamphlet are remarkably similar.
My reservation about accusing the Secretary of State of deciding deliberately to undermine the independence of HMI is that I am conceding too much to the coherence of his policy. I think that it happened accidentally, when the Secretary of State saw the inspector's policy proposal and decided that he could go along with it in the hope that there would never be legislation on it.
As I said, and will continue to say throughout the election, our proposals, as every inspector knows, strengthen Her Majesty's inspectorate. They place the senior chief inspector in the same constitutional position to the education standards commission as the Comptroller and Auditor General is in relation to the Public Accounts Committee or the controller of the Audit Commission is in


relation to the Audit Commission. I have never heard it suggested that the controller of the Audit Commission is the creature of the commission, because he has clear constitutional duties that are separate from the commission.
3.15 pm
Moreover, for the first time, the inspectorate, directing and supervising the work of local inspectors in a single national service, will have a clear point of report, not directly to Ministers but to the House. Standards have become such a highly charged political issue—in many ways that is good, because it reflects the increasing importance of education and the increasing sense that we have to attack the problem of standards—that the independence of those who monitor what is going on in schools must be clear beyond peradventure.
The Secretary of State has refused our proposal to provide safeguards over the appointment of the senior chief inspector by the Secretary of State—for example, by having it made by the Civil Service Commission. Therefore, as long as the chief inspector arid the inspectorate have to serve two masters—the public interest and Minister's private interests—their independence will be compromised. It would be far more satisfactory to have them as a body reporting to Parliament where the detailed scrutiny of their work, through the commission, took place in the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. Inspectors will be available to give Ministers advice, but that is a separate matter.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that he can commend this arrangement, which I am sure that all concerned with education would endorse, by saying that the inspectors under this plan will be responsible to all the parents all the time rather than to the Secretary of State, who, even at best, can be representative only of some of the parents some of the time?

Mr. Straw: Yes, I would say that without hesitation. Moreover, under our proposals for an education standards commission, parents end up with much more than simply the paper choice that they get under the parents charter and, in many cases, under the Government's proposals.
Parents' rights are reduced, as people are understanding, because in many areas it is not parents who are choosing a school but schools that are choosing parents. Our proposals give parents real rights, and the local authority's performance will be inspected. That has never happened in the past 13 years, which the Secretary of State bleats on about when he uses local authorities as a punchbag.
For a brief period, HMI did snapshot inspections of local authority areas, but that policy was abandoned by the Secretary of State or his predecessor. We would require, by law, that the performance of the local authority be properly inspected. We would ensure that if parents felt that a local authority was behaving in a way likely to damage standards, they could appeal, through a properly constituted governors meeting, to the education standards commission and secure action.
In Committee, Conservative Members asked me about this London borough or another borough that had been in the news. There was no dubiety about my answer, because we feel that the whole aim of policy should be to secure a

high standard of education. If a local authority is doing a proper job, that is fine. If it is not, then the education standards commission and HMI will come down on it like a ton of bricks.
Let me also make it clear to the Secretary of State, as he appears to be listening—again there is no dubiety about this, and it is all on the record—that the power to issue directions that is contained in sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944, which has caused considerable problems would be strengthened. The commission could make a recommendation to the Secretary of State about the exercise of those powers and could issue directions both in relation to a school and to a local authority.
A clear message would go out that if governors were doing their job, that would be fine, but if they fell down, the interests of the children would come well above their constitutional position.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We are touching on important matters. Both sides are espousing an interest in the independence of HMI. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) gave details of how he thinks that should be achieved. I shall briefly discuss the origin of the Bill's approach. The hon. Members for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and for Blackburn give every appearance of believing the suggestions that the Bill is based on hostility to HMI, that it comes from the Centre for Policy Studies, and so on.
When I became Secretary of State, I thought that, if we were to move towards a system of greater parental choice between schools and greater accountability to parents, we needed more information for parents so that their choice could be effective and informed. In fact, I felt that there was a need for a system of quality assurance to improve informed parental choice and public accountability. That led to a review of HMI's position in any system of quality assurance. As a result of that review within my Department, proposals emerged for an inspection at schools level, with inspectorates chosen by the governors but registered with and monitored by HMI. That is the origin of the Bill.
As the hon. Gentleman said again today, the Bill has been presented as some sort of privatisation or emasculation of HMI. As a word, privatisation was always crude and clumsy, and it has never been more misused. HMI remains with statutory independence and statutory powers under the Bill. The reason why the numbers appear to be dramatically reduced is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because those inspectors involved in higher education will move to the quality assurance section of the higher education funding council, while those involved in further education will be accountable to the further education funding council. The reduction in numbers is not as dramatic as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It was based on the best judgment of the senior chief inspector and me about the numbers required to do the task required. We were not artificially fixing the numbers. The role that we gave the inspectors was powerful arid independent. However, because of amendments passed in the other place, the numbers will probably rise.
It is absurd to refer to the reduction in the numbers required to do the task and say that that implies privatisation. Under the Bill, HMI remains independent, respected and with more independence of the Secretary of State than ever before.

Mr. Straw: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has such confidence in his proposals, why has he never been willing to publish the review? I do not want to keep hearing him coming out with stuff about official advice being confidential—I know that. However, I also happen to know that plenty of his colleagues have arranged for similar reviews to be published. The Rayner scrutiny of HMI in the early 1980s was published. Most Government reviews, of which this is one, are published. What was the Secretary of State scared of when he suppressed the review, and why did he become angry when it was leaked? Would not it have been better for the explanation and understanding of his policy if he had put the review before the House?

Mr. Clarke: Every time the hon. Gentleman has raised that matter, I have said that my view is that advice to Ministers should not be published. Were he ever to become a Secretary of State, I do not think that he would publish most of the advice given to him, either. Most advice prepared for the purposes of publication is different to advice given to Ministers. As it happens, The Independent claimed an extensive leak of the review, which appeared in that newspaper shortly after it had been prepared for me. The hon. Gentleman has not drawn extensively on that leak. If The Independent was correct, the hon. Gentleman would know that the account that I have just given of the origin of the policy is correct. He knows that he is in a better position to make a fuss about the apparent banishing of the review—

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Instead of listening to Labour Members, will my right hon. and learned Friend visit Bolton to talk to parents who are keen on his reforms—particularly those of children at Crompton Fold primary school, which hopes to secure full grant-maintained status by the time that its next term begins, on 27 April?

Mr. Clarke: I may have an opportunity to do so in the next three or four weeks, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his invitation.
The hon. Member for Blackburn contrasts the amendment with his proposals for HMI's greater independence, which I have another opportunity to challenge now. The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House, which he accused me of doing, when he said that HMI would, under Labour's proposals, have more independence. In fact, they threatened the inspectorate's independence in a way in which it has not been threatened since it was founded.
"Raising the Standard" states that the hon. Gentleman's great quango, the commission, which would play an all-singing, all-dancing role in Labour's education policy,
would be responsible for inspecting and measuring the effectiveness of schools, and for securing measures to raise standards. It would take over the inspectorial work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education … and the bulk of the Inspectorate itself.
That makes it clear that HMI would be subordinate to the new commission and that its inspectorial work would be taken over by that quango.
HMI currently determines its own programme of work, but in future that would be done by the commission. At present, HMI reports directly to the Secretary of State; Labour wants it to report to the commission. The hon. Gentleman's analogy with the controller of the Audit

Commission and with the Audit Commission is very revealing. The hon. Gentleman says that HMI would be in the same position as the controller—but he is not independent of the Audit Commission, but its servant. The commission appoints him.
The hon. Gentleman's model and statement of policy suggests that HMI should be made subordinate to a commission that he, the Secretary of State, would appoint. Under Labour, the inspectorate would lose its independence, and its inspectorial role would be reduced.
The hon. Gentleman opposes a Bill that will give HMI enhanced status and more independence than ever before. If, at this late hour, the hon. Gentleman has seen the light on the road to Damascus, really believes that inspection should be free of political control and freer of the Government, and that there should be independent inspection of schools; and if—wonder of wonders—Labour believes that the results of inspections should be divulged to parents, and that the public should be allowed to know the strengths and weaknesses of the schools that their children attend, I welcome the hon. Member for Blackburn to the fold. However, the hon. Gentleman's published documents and his speeches today make it clear that he is dressing up behind an air of independence a desire to take over HMI and to make it subordinate to a body that a Labour Secretary of State would appoint.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State talks utter nonsense. Nothing in "Raising the Standard" suggests that HMI's programme should be subject to the commission. In suggesting that I, as Secretary of State, would appoint the members of the commission, the right hon. and learned Gentleman fails to understand that that body would report to Parliament. Its members would be nominated by the Secretary of State but would be subject to endorsement of the all-party Education, Science and Arts Select Committee.
That provision was specifically included in "Raising the Standard" to avoid precisely the kind of partisan appointments of which the Secretary of State is a past master, and which have so damaged the apparent independence of standing of bodies such as the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council—and of district and regional health authorities when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Secretary of State for Health.
The Secretary of State is the last person in the House to talk about appointments being independent of Minister's partisan interests. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot make any appointment without first asking of the person where his political affiliation lies. He is the last person to be trusted with any appointment that has any independence attached to it. The public will have no trouble at all—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is making an intervention and not introducing an amendment.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence on the penultimate sitting of this Parliament.
The public will have no difficulty in judging which sort of appointment system will be more independent. There is the choice between the Secretary of State, with his previous convictions, appointing the chief inspector and having him


report to him, the Secretary of State, and our system, under which the membership of the commission would have to be approved by an all-party Select Committee, which would then make the appointment. It would then report—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must now follow my guideline and resume his seat.

Mr. Clarke: That was not an intervention: it was a wild, intemperate and inaccurate outburst. The hon. Gentleman realised that I was exposing his policies. He is playing at the onset of a campaign in which regard for truth and accuracy is beginning to fade rather rapidly. I wish that it did not in political debates.
The hon. Member for Ashfield accused me of attacking Her Majesty's inspectorate reports. I have told him that I have never attacked one. The hon. Member for Blackburn has said that, before appointing anyone to a post, I always ask about his or her political affiliations. To the best of my knowledge and recollection, I have never asked anybody whom I was appointing to a post about his political affiliation. I have appointed ex-Labour Members as chairmen of health authorities. I defy the hon. Gentleman to produce any evidence.
The hon. Member for Blackburn is trying to evade his own policy document. When I do not refer to it, he says that I have not read it. When I read it, he is deeply embarrassed. He has spent the afternoon proclaiming the independence of the inspectorate. I have quoted his document accurately and temperately and, as I discovered from his reaction, extremely damagingly. The relevant passage reads that the commission
would take over the inspectorial work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education and the bulk of the Inspectorate itself.
The staff of the inspectorate would be made the employees of the commission, and they would lose their independence. It is ridiculous for the hon. Gentleman to argue that he is not taking away the independence of the inspectorate when his own words have always asserted that. The amendments are consistent with the independence of the inspectorate. The Bill makes Her Majesty's chief inspector more independent of the Government than at any time in the past. That being the reality, I suggest that the House should agree with the Lords in the proposed amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 2, line 16, after "schools" insert "in England".

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 9 and 24.

Mr. Clarke: The amendments would make drafting changes. Under the guillotine procedure, the Opposition have less than 18 minutes. They can debate the amendments if they are becoming desperately short of material to keep the debate going, but otherwise I suggest that the House might take them on the nod.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 2, line 29, at end insert
("( ) The Chief Inspector for England may at any time give advice to the Secretary of State on any matter connected with schools, or a particular school, in England.")

Read a Second time.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 4, at end add
including whether there is adequate finance available to ensure the provision of good-quality education.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments (b) and (c) to the Lords amendment, amendment No. 10 and amendment (d) to that amendment.

Ms. Armstrong: I cannot say that I am overjoyed to be moving the amendment at this time on a Friday afternoon. I have regarded my involvement in the consideration of education Bills as a learning exercise, and I have learnt an enormous amount from the Secretary of State this afternoon. I have learnt that so long as one is a Tory Secretary of State it is possible to say anything and expect it to be believed. I know that most people throughout the country, along with myself, do not believe a great deal of the assertions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I began to think that I was in the middle of another Tory party broadcast. The Sunday Times analysed his broadcast last week and told us that four of five assertions were entirely untrue. Perhaps that was why I expected the right hon. and learned Gentleman to blush when he moved the first group of amendments.
The amendments deal with the powers of the inspectorate when reporting to the Secretary of State. This matter was debated in Standing Committee. It seemed to us that the Government were defining so carefully the inspection aspects that it might be impossible for the inspectors to comment on some of those aspects and on how Government policy was affecting the ability of individual schools to enable each child to learn as much as possible and make progress. We realise that the Government will not accept the amendments, but we believe it important that they should be made to think about them.
I am amazed by the way that the Secretary of State has continued to defend his Bill against all the evidence. The evidence that has been given by people in all parts of the country, who have supported other aspects of his reforms, does not seem to matter much to the Secretary of State. They are therefore completely bewildered by his intransigence and by his determination to say that the Bill equates with anything like a parents charter.
Amendment (a) deals with the right and the opportunity for the senior chief inspector to include in his report comments on whether adequate finance is available to ensure the provision of good quality education. The Government frequently tell us that expenditure on education has nothing to do with the outcome. That is an interesting argument. Conservative Members have made it clear time and again that they are so concerned about the quality of education for their own children that they choose to opt out of the state system, since the resources provided for the maintained sector are insufficient. [Interruption.] Again, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) has not read the amendment. It refers to adequate finance being made available to ensure the provision of good quality education.
Inspectors should be able to comment on whether there is a sufficient number of highly qualified teachers in a school, on whether the teaching staff have adequate and


appropriate qualifications, accompanied by appropriate remuneration, and on whether the resources available to a school are sufficient for it to provide the right amount of equipment, the right number of books and the right laboratories that it needs if it is to implement the national curriculum. If children are not provided with appropriate texbooks, writing materials, computers, sports equipment, musical instruments and all the other facilities that are needed if they are to benefit from a good education, the quality of their education will not improve and will probably decline.
I know from various reports and from the parents who have written, rung and come to see me that some schools are requesting a significant financial contribution to enable them to continue to provide experienced teachers. That is a particular problem with the local management of schools formula, but it faces many other schools. I do not accept that schools should believe that they can employ only newly qualified teachers because the formula to which they are working does not enable them to carry an experienced teaching force. Nor do I accept that it is legitimate for parents to be put in a position in which they have to contribute for their children to receive a basic education.
Recently, a parent came to see me in tears. She has stopped going to parents' meetings, first, because her husband is long-term unemployed, she is not working and the visit involves a fairly costly bus journey. More than that, she said that whenever she went she was expected to contribute to a raffle or something else for fund-raising. She could not do so and felt embarrassed about that. When that creeps into parents' opportunity to consult teachers about their children's education, we must be in a very bad way. It must be recognised that it is legitimate for the inspector to comment on the quality of resources available to schools when he reports to the Secretary of State.
Amendment (b) considers
whether class sizes need to be reduced in order to ensure the provision of good quality education".
The Secretary of State is on record as saying that class sizes are irrelevant. I am told by the information officer of the Independent Schools Information Service that, according to its surveys, one of the key criteria that make parents choose to send their children to independent schools is because class sizes are small there. Therefore, class size means something to those parents. We want to ensure that class sizes in the state sector do not continue to increase as they are at the moment.
I was horrified at the latest reports about the number of children being taught in classes of 40 or more pupils. It is a small percentage in terms of the whole school population. Nevertheless, for thousands of children it is their only experience in a class at that stage of their career. Although the number may not be large in terms of the overall school population, it is critical for each of those children. That is why we have said that one of our first acts will be to ensure that no child has to be taught in a class of more than 40 pupils. We shall reduce class sizes and introduce a maximum limit until they are reduced to 30.
I visit and have regular contact with a number of primary schools and I know that class size is regarded as important not only by teachers but by parents and people on governing bodies who are determined to improve their schools. We believe that it is an issue of national

importance and should be dealt with by any Government. We should have liked it to be dealt with by this Government, but it will of course be dealt with by the next Labour Government.
Amendment (c) deals with the manner in which information is provided under clause 16 which deals with information and what have been called league tables. Essentially, the amendments give Her Majesty's chief inspector the power to advise the Secretary of State on any aspects of the information being given by schools. We argued consistently in Committee that the information that the Government had specified to date was too narrow, and was not clear. The criteria according to which information is to be given still allow too many variations.
3.45 pm
We should like more information to be available, but we also tabled the amendments to ask the Secretary of State to get rid of some of the rhetoric—I know that that is difficult for him. I am talking about the rhetoric that we have heard from him about information. Those aspects of the Bill are not necessary, because there is already the power for that information to be given, and under regulations it has to be given.
The Bill is largely unnecessary legislation, which adds little to the present law on maintained schools. Its most significant effect is to require independent schools—including city technology colleges and their arts equivalents—and non-maintained special schools to publish the same information that maintained schools are required to publish.
We seek to ensure that we at least place on record again the fact that clause 16 is in the Bill not because the law needed altering but because the Secretary of State wanted to give himself the opportunity to publish the parents charter. A lot of money has been spent on that, but most of the information involved is already made available to parents.
We should like the information available to parents to be wider and to deal more clearly with children's progress in schools. Again, the Secretary of State will say that the Opposition want to make the information so complex that no one will be able to deal with it. I reject that suggestion. I believe that parents will be able to deal with information which shows them how their individual children are progressing and also how effective the school is.
At present, the latest league tables for standard assessment tests have so many problems, as well as several inaccuracies, as to render the whole exercise somewhat farcical. Are the Government serious about the independence of Her Majesty's inspectorate? I have heard the Secretary of State speak many times. I am not a cynical person, but he drives one to cynicism when he keeps repeating his opinion of our policy when he has not really tried to understand it.
I am amused when in other debates in the Chamber Conservative Members tell us how good the Audit Commission is and how we ought to value it more, because when we propose similar bodies for education, in order to recognise nationally the importance of having standards across the board, clear criteria by which to judge them and a clear means of measuring and tackling school effectiveness, the Secretary of State tries to be cynical about that.
I am confident that in the next few weeks we shall be able to ensure that there is a Government who are really


worried about standards. Our amendments would at least give the Government the opportunity to recognise the independence which many fear will disappear—the ability of the inspectorate to comment on the way in which Government policy is affecting schools' ability to deliver the quality of education that they wish. It is right that the inspectorate should comment on how Government policy affects schools. The amendments attempt to get information from the Government on that subject.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The amendments to the broad, sweeping Lords amendments are not necessary. It is not necessary to draw particular attention to the funding of schools when it has increased by 50 per cent. per pupil during the lifetime of this Government. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) referred to the parents charter, which she still attacked. She seemed to defend the fact that at one time her political allies refused to distribute it. From beginning to end of the debate—

It being two hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion relating to the Education (Schools) Bill (allocation of time), MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the chair, pursuant to Order this day.

Amendment to the Lords amendment negatived.

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Army Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The decision to merge the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Rangers was especially important because it affects regiments that have stood for more than 20 years in the front line of the battle against terrorism. The decision is not a criticism of the UDR or of the Royal Irish Rangers. There is no conspiracy here and no hidden agenda.
The aim is to create in the home service battalions of the new regiment an even more professional, effective and flexible security force which is capable of playing an even more decisive role on behalf of all law-abiding people of Northern Ireland in bringing about the defeat of terrorism. The agenda is very much in the interests of Northern Ireland, of the UDR and of its members.
The UDR is about 6,000 strong with a roughly 50:50 ratio between full-timers and part-timers. We expect to maintain the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment at about the same total strength and with a part-time element of about the same size. Obviously, we are not going to commit ourselves to precise figures, but I can give the House a reassurance. Part-time service is a vital and cost-effective feature of the UDR and we expect to retain it at about its present level.
The home service battalions will, of course, be only one element in our total security forces deployed in Northern Ireland, which amount to about 17,000. The total number of troops deployed may vary in the future, depending on the security situation, just as it has varied in the past.
We are still working on the detailed terms of service for the new regiment. We recognise entirely that members of the UDR did not join to travel the world but joined to serve locally the people of Northern Ireland. We shall acknowledge that in the new terms of service for the home service battalions. Those terms will limit the service that is required to service within Northern Ireland.
For some, however, the opportunity to volunteer for a tour of duty or training with the general service element of the regiment may be attractive. It may enhance their military proficiency and chances of promotion. We certainly believe that for some, training or duty outside Northern Ireland will be to their wider benefit.
The principal cost element to which the Bill relates is military manpower. We shall continue to give the House the information about numbers in the home service battalions which we provide about the UDR at present. I commend the Bill to the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is greatly to be regretted that, in the dying hours of this Parliament, we should be giving the Bill its Third Reading. The matter is highly controversial in Northern Ireland. Anyone who listened to a show on local radio last night will understand that. The charges made were very serious indeed.
I cannot accept—I wish that I could—what the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said. I would merely ask him about the poll carried out by the Ulster


Defence Regiment to ascertain the opinion of the regiment and of people in Northern Ireland. At a meeting at which the Minister was present, elected representatives of Northern Ireland found out for the first time that a public relations job had been done. We were entitled to know who did it. We were also entitled to know the sample that was taken and the attitude of members of the regiment. Some of them went public and said that they had been handed documents by their superior officer and told that, when on television and speaking to the press, they were to follow the official line that the officers were taking. They were told that if they did not take that line, and if they made television appearances or talked to the press, they would be subject to Army discipline. I do not think that that is the way in which to get a good response from loyal men who take their lives in their hands every time they put on their uniform or if they are known to be members of the UDR.
I utterly deplore the fact that Northern Ireland representatives have not had the opportunity to discuss the Bill as it should be discussed. I was promised that there would be representatives of all parties in the House when the Bill went into Standing Committee. The opportunity to serve on a Committee considering the Bill was denied to my party and to the Social Democratic and Labour party, which is interested in having the regiment abolished, as its representatives have always said.
We must have full democratic discussion of matters relevant to Northern Ireland. We must be able to probe the Government and table amendments, yet, as a representative of Northern Ireland, and representing a Northern Ireland party, I have had no opportunity to move any amendments to the Bill. Is that what democracy is coming to? We are told that there is much support for the Bill. Even if that is so and I am in a tiny minority, I should be allowed to exercise my democratic rights through the institutions of the House established for that purpose.
I feel strongly that it would have been better had the Government withdrawn the Bill at this stage. If the Conservatives are in government after the election, they could bring it back. As the Labour party agrees with the Bill, a Labour Government could also bring it back. We could then have a full and proper discussion in Committee and Northern Ireland Members could table amendments to make the Bill more in keeping with what they wish. That opportunity has been denied to us and, late on Friday, the Government are pressing on regardless in an attempt to get the Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible.
In the name of those whom I represent and in the name of the vast majority of members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, I must protest. The question has been asked: why do not members of the regiment resign if they are unhappy with the proposals? Why should they? They volunteer to stand by and to serve their country. Yet people say, "There have not been many resignations from the regiment, so all its members must be happy." That claim is illogical and unjustified. As I said, a man who joins the UDR puts himself and his family at risk. The men who do that are loyal men who want to defend their country against the acts of terrorism that are taking place there.
There is one word on the lips of the people of Northern Ireland in respect of the Bill and it is "betrayal". Those people include the highest to the lowest parts of society.

Why do they say it? Hon. Members seem to think that Ulster people say "betrayal" when they have no arguments to put. However, when one studies the history and how the thought of the Bill was born in the Government's mind, one sees how justified Ulster people are. The thought of doing away with the Ulster Defence Regiment did not start in the House or with the Government; it started with the Irish Republic. It started on the very day on which the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. I have with me a statement by the then Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. He said:
When we get into the conference we will put forward Irish views and proposals for the progressive establishment of a new security system which would obviate the need for the UDR to be involved in local security. This will be pursued sensitively, carefully and firmly.
Here we have the blueprint for the very thing that the House is asked to do. We must compare that statement with the statement that was made in the House. We were told that we are not abolishing the UDR but are making a better Army career structure for the UDR. That is exactly what the Taoiseach suggested—that the way to get rid of the UDR was to obviate its place in the security of Northern Ireland.
I must put a salute firmly on record. The obituary that was written by the Government does not take into account everything that has happened in respect of the UDR. More than 200 UDR men have been killed by terrorists, 44 former members have been murdered by the IRA and 377 have been seriously wounded. The Ulster Defence Regiment has given value for money. It costs £1·5 million a week, whereas the RUC costs £1·5 million a day. No other aspect of the security forces is so cost-effective. In 20 years, the UDR has trained 40,000 members. Of them, 17 have been convicted for murder. Four are having their appeals reheard. The UDR is responsible for only 0·28 per cent. of all deaths in Northern Ireland. Republican terrorists have killed 250 times as many people as the Ulster Defence Regiment in carrying out its statutory duties.
That is part of the record of this regiment. It ill becomes me not to pay the highest tribute to the men who left their homes, their children, their wives and their businesses to go on to the streets of Northern Ireland when the House could find no one else to do the job. Those men were recruited when the House, in its folly, abolished the Ulster Special Constabulary, a gallant body of men who defended Ulster so well that the official historian of the IRA has said that as long as they were there the IRA could not do the task that it wanted to do in taking over Northern Ireland. That was written by Tim Pat Coogan in the official biography of the IRA. It is a fine tribute.
History is now repeating itself. The UDR is a gallant regiment which the House should honour. In fact, a few weeks before the guillotine fell on the regiment, Her Majesty the Queen gave her colours to four of its battalions and spoke in the highest possible manner of the gallantry of those men. There has been and there continues to be, however, a vicious and diabolical campaign of slander against the regiment. We have had all cries. The greatest cry has come from the IRA. It has cried out, "Get rid of the Ulster Defence Regiment."
If the Minister of State for the Armed Forces believes that he is giving the right message to the people of Northern Ireland by pressing the Bill through today, he is gravely mistaken. It gives the wrong message at the wrong


time to the people of Northern Ireland and those who have their backs against the wall under terrorism. I appeal to the Minister. Nothing will be lost if he withdraws the Bill tonight. Let it come back to the new House of Commons. Let us have a further discussion on the matter and put it to a Committee in which those who represent Northern Ireland can move the necessary amendments. That is the way in which it should be done.
As I said, history is, sadly, repeating itself. The Bill tells us that all members of the Ulster Defence Regiment will cease to be members of that regiment. It amounts to an abandoning of the regiment. The briefing paper that Tory Members of Parliament received said that the Bill was the end—the word "end" was used—of the Ulster Defence Regiment. No amount of assurances or talk from the Government Front Bench could do away with that fact. The Bill destroys the Ulster Defence Regiment.
The only reason why we have the Bill is that the regiment was brought into existence by a Bill becoming law. The Government thought that they could achieve their purpose in another way. When we told them that they would have to come to the House, they discovered that primary legislation would be necessary. If it had not been necessary, the measure would have been steamrollered through long before and we would not even have had this debate. That is why many people in Northern Ireland feel that Northern Ireland legislation should be dealt with properly, with Bills being announced, going through the House and becoming Acts.
It seems ironic that the Government praise the Ulster Defence Regiment when they intend to do away with it. I read the Committee proceedings on the Bill, which lasted barely an hour. I read all the praise and sympathy for the UDR. Many hon. Members said, "Yes, we know how you feel." The people in Northern Ireland do not want any sympathy. They want tangible expressions from the House that it has taken cognisance of what is happening in Northern Ireland and is prepared to do something about it.
Passing the Bill will not achieve what the Minister tells us that he is trying to achieve—peace and a better way to handle security in Northern Ireland. I know people on the border whose only defence is the Ulster Defence Regiment. I know how they feel about the Bill. I know how the lonely families in South Armagh, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, the Londonderry border and South Down feel about the Bill. The last line of their defence is to be taken away from them. They deserve that defence and the House has a responsibility to give it to them. But today the House will take it from them.
No amount of appeals or assurances and no amount of lectures from the Government to representatives in Northern Ireland which do not tell them the things that they want to hear can alter the fact that fear is in the hearts of the people who have looked to the Ulster Defence Regiment and who received protection from it in the sad and bad days in the past which, although we do not want to prophesy, we are sure will continue.
The Bill is opposed and needs to be opposed. In discussions on the Bill I have been staggered by the way in which the measure has been sold to the people. I do not think that anyone in Northern Ireland, or even the Minister during his brief introductory statement to the Third Reading debate, has ever suggested that the Ulster Defence Regiment was like any other regiment in the British Army. It was called into existence to do a specific

job, not to create professional soldiers or to give them a career in the Army but to enlist them for the defence of their homes, their families and the country that gave them their birth. That is why it is called the Ulster Defence Regiment.
The Bill will delete the name of Ulster, although the Ulster Defence Regiment has held an honoured place among the regiments of the British Army. Ministers tell us that they want to introduce an Irish dimension into the Army. The largest part of Ireland—26 counties—is no longer part of this United Kingdom and therefore is not especially interested in it.
The explanatory note to the Bill says that the new regiment will be called the Royal Irish Rangers. It seems to me that if the Government had wanted to put the word "Royal" in the name and had wanted to give continued assurance and some respite in the fear in the hearts of the people in Northern Ireland, they could have called it the Royal Ulster Regiment.
Why is there such bitter hatred and why does the Army want to delete the name "Ulster" from its records—records which have brought honour to men who fought in the regiment—and put "Irish" in its place? That is the question that the Minister has to ask.
As I said in a previous debate, the Minister's boss, the Secretary of State for Defence, made it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and to me that never again would Ulster be used in the name of any regiment in the British Army and he said, "You know why."
What is the reason? It is because of opposition from Dublin to that name. The Bill was born out of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Taoiseach of the Republic at the time made it crystal clear that it was his aim to see to it that that regiment was eventually disbanded. That is what will happen as a result of the Third Reading of the Bill.
At every Anglo-Irish Agreement meeting since the agreement was signed, the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic has made a statement attacking the Ulster Defence Regiment. So, their propaganda went on and on.
At the last meeting—the first meeting under the new Irish Government—Mr. Andrews, the Foreign Minister, said that the Ulster Defence Regiment would be the first subject that he would raise at the Anglo-Irish Conference. There has been a well-orchestrated, well-planned campaign of propaganda to discredit the men of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
I should like to take the House to Castlederg. I should like to take hon. Members through the cemetery gate, turn them to the right-hand side and show them every plot in that graveyard where lie the bodies of UDR men murdered in that area by the IRA. I should like to do something else; I should like to tell hon. Members that when I sat in a room with the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, Mr. Hermon, the body of men there said, "Sixteen of our colleague UDR men have been murdered. Now count us and come back in a year's time and see how many are left." I went back a year later, not Mr. Hermon, and those ranks were seriously depleted. Instead of men, there were vacant chairs. Some hon. Members may not want anybody to speak of these matters. Others may want to get away, and I can well understand why, but we will fail in our duty to represent Northern Ireland if we do not put these matters firmly on the record.
This matter goes down into the very depths of the Ulster people. We are dealing with life and death. We are dealing with something that the Government said that they would do for the people of Northern Ireland when they abolished the old Stormont Parliament and took responsibility for security from the elected representatives there: they said that they would safeguard our homes and lives—that they would defend us. They recruited this regiment of Ulster men who were prepared to put their lives on the line to give their fellows on both sides of the religious divide security and defence. How have they been treated?
This is no good day for the House, for the Minister of State for the Armed Forces or for the people of Northern Ireland. We need to face up to that. I know that our voices will be like those of one crying in the wilderness. Nevertheless, those voices must be raised strongly and loudly in the House today. What is going to happen in Northern Ireland?
Some weeks ago we had a most distressing, terrible, heart-rending period of violence. There were a number of atrocious, diabolical, tit-for-tat killings. What happened? The Secretary of State called out the UDR. That poured oil on the waters. A couple of weeks later we had comparative calm and peace in that area of the city of Belfast. Only recently, the Secretary of State called out the regiment to alleviate the distresses of Ulster in the midst of its agony, and it was successful. Yet, at the same time the Government were pressing ahead to destroy the regiment. I see that even the Minister paid tribute in some Government papers and the Committee to its ability to do such a task. Why, then, does the Minister put his hand to abolishing a regiment that has done particular good recently in the war-torn Province that my colleagues and I have to represent?
The past 21 years have been hard years for everyone in Ulster. Violence and terrorism have been on the increase. One thing has been highlighted month in, month out over those terrible years—the Government's inability to give the death blow to the men of violence. There has been an increase in the growth of terrorism and counter-terrorism. The UDR soldier has never ceased to be a target. In many cases he has been not only a target but a victim of IRA violence.
Members of the IRA do not come out, declare themselves and say, "Let's fight it out", but perhaps four or five of them wait for that man when he goes off duty, having done his stint to defend the people of Northern Ireland, and shoot him in cold blood. Sometimes, when he is coming home from earning money to keep his family and children, they shoot him, perhaps in his own yard before his children and his wife. Hon. Members should be on their feet today defending the Ulster Defence Regiment, instead of acting as they are.
The other day, on the border, four IRA men attacked one UDR man who had a handgun. He demonstrated his bravery and fought off the four of them. He shot one and the other three fled to the safe sanctuary of the Irish Republic, to be released later by the authorities there. That was an up-to-date incident. More than 45 members have been killed and 377 members have been seriously

wounded, both on and off duty. I would challenge any hon. Member who questioned the gallantry and loyalty of members of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
It has been said to me, "Haven't those men done things that they shouldn't have done?" Of course they have, but have not members of other regiments from other parts of the United Kingdom also done things that they should not have done? Have not they, too, been charged with murder in the courts and found guilty? Why do not we make an even comparison between all the regiments that serve in Northern Ireland? Why must the Ulster man be pilloried? Why must the Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers be picked out to be treated in that way? I make a plea in the House that all our men who serve in those regiments should be defended. If one, two or more people do something wrong, the law takes care of them, but that does not challenge the integrity of the other regiment members.
The Government appear not to take account of the sacrifices that have been made. They are not prepared to say to the Ulster Defence Regiment, "You have done a good job; you will keep your name and we shall put 'Royal' before it. Why shouldn't you be honoured with that title? Why shouldn't the name of the only part of Ireland that is now in the United Kingdom be the name of one of our regiments?" Instead of that, the miserable little Bill is presented to the House today as the House is about to close down, and we are told that it is imperative that it is passed. I appeal to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to think again. The people in Northern Ireland are saying, "All this is rubbing the noses of the suffering UDR members into the dirt. They would be better treated if they had not given their lives and paid the ultimate price in loyalty to defend the people of Ulster."
We are told that the Ulster Defence Regiment is sectarian. How can it be anything else when the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church tells its people that they should not join it, and the cardinal tells his people that the Ulster Defence Regiment should be done away with? We cannot expect Roman Catholic people to join it. If they do so, they have to leave their homes and live away. Their parents have to visit them in safe houses. Do hon. Members realise that police officers and members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who are Roman Catholics—I salute their loyalty and bravery—cannot go to their own homes? Their parents have to meet them in secret, safe houses in the city of Belfast or elsewhere, so they are cut off. We cannot expect people to serve in those circumstances.
No greater hardship has been suffered by any member of Her Majesty's forces than has been suffered by members of the UDR. They have borne the burden and the heat of the day and their share of hardship. The regiment, totalling 6,000 full-time and part-time members, is facing a crisis. The Minister cannot tell the House what will be left of the part-time sector of the regiment. It has been said that there might be 3,000 members. I noticed from the Committee Hansard that he said that he hoped that the forecast by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) was right, and that 3,000 part-time members would be retained, but it is the part-time part of the regiment that is most important. It needs to be strengthened, not weakened, but the Minister cannot deny that when the Bill comes into force the regiment will be further weakened.
If the Government are honest when they say that the part-time element of the regiment should be increased,


why has there been no intensive campaigning on its behalf? Why was there not a call-up asking people to join the regiment on a part-time basis? To emphasise only the career structure of the new amalgamated regiment is to miss the point, which is that there should be a determined effort to ensure that part-timers are not only kept at their present level but increased. The Government are not doing that. I will go further and make a prophecy, based on what the Minister said—the number of part-timers will be reduced more and more.
I am glad to say that it is acknowledged by those who are opposed to the Ulster Defence Regiment that it is not part of the problem. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. NcNair-Wilson) referred to a television programme, saying that it was unfair that the programme-makers should pillory the UDR and say that it was part of the problem that it had been brought into being to solve. No greater slander could have been made against the regiment.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, said at his party's conference that only 0·28 per cent. of violent deaths in Northern Ireland had been caused by the UDR and that 67 per cent. of those deaths had been caused by the Irish Republican Army or its associates. Put that 67 per cent. beside that 0·28 per cent. and take from the latter those who were killed because they were doing something that they had to be stopped from doing and the result shows that the UDR has the best record on killing of all the services in Northern Ireland. It is difficult to find any justification for what is happening today.
The UDR has been maligned by intrusive comments from successive foreign Governments of the Irish Republic. The Government, by their actions, show that they care nothing for the security of the Province. They are content to play the Republican green card of continuous criticism, ignoring the consequences of such catcalling. It was the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which brought about the problem and gave rise to the proposed disbandment of the UDR, via a merger.
The Minister says that there is no conspiracy, no hidden agenda, and that we should not believe such rumours. He should come to Northern Ireland, where I would take him to homes that I have visited, with their curly-headed little boys and girls who have no father tonight. I would like him to speak to the wives so that they could tell him what they suffer when even the memory of their loved ones is maligned and attacked on television by those whose one aim is to blacken the name of the regiment. The House should wake up to the fact that if we keep blackening the names of our friends and those who are prepared to stand for law and order and decency, and to give their lives in defence of that, we shall be sowing the wind and one day we shall reap the whirlwind. That will happen because of the Bill.
The House should remember that under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement there is an obligation on the conference that at its every meeting it should consider the security position, and thus provide an opportunity to deal with policy issues, serious incidents and forthcoming events. The policy issue that has been hammered and hammered by the Irish Republic is the UDR. One would not think that the IRA was carrying out any murders. At every meeting an announcement is made that, once again, the UDR must be put under scrutiny. Once again, there must be an assurance that the police will accompany UDR

members. Once again, we must agree to prevent the UDR from having any contact with members of the general public.
How can the UDR carry out its duties if it cannot deal with the general public? There has been a campaign to isolate the regiment and, that campaign having succeeded in the propaganda war, the way has been prepared for the regiment's final destruction. The will of the Government of the Republic to effect change in Northern Ireland and in the UDR was evident even before the defence review of Her Majesty's forces was announced. We saw it coming. I was relieved when I heard the Secretary of State for Defence say that there would be no change to the UDR. Suddenly, the greatest of all changes was announced—the regiment is to be disbanded. The Bill makes that perfectly clear. Even if we were to accept that the merger is a military proposal in which both regiments will be fully absorbed, as the Minister said, we could not accept that the will of the Government of the Republic did not influence the decision to bring about that merger.
The very fact that the Government of the United Kingdom would even consider the suggestions of a hostile and foreign Government—who make an illegal claim to Her Majesty's jurisdiction—is in itself a negation of responsibility. As I said in the House after the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, it was an outrage that the first thing said by the Taoiseach was that there would be the demise of a regiment of the British Army as a result of the signing of the agreement. Dr. Garrett Fitzgerald said
The UDR has a core of competent, professional military officers"—
or will the Minister claim that it is not competent and professional, down to company level?—
as well as an adequate number of experienced NCOs.
When was the regiment lacking in those NCOs? He added:
The part-time membership of the UDR should be disbanded"—
and we are seeing that happen—
and better control of UDR operations should be ensured.
That was the Prime Minister of a foreign country dictating what should happen to a British Army regiment. When one considers the Bill's proposals, it is clear that the requirements of the then Taoiseach are being met.
The proposed UDR career restructuring is an attempt to hide the motives behind the merger, which is to get rid of the unacceptable face of security, as it is painted by the Irish Republic and others, and to change the UDR's ethos.
The emergency situation in which the regiment is even more evident today. Shame on successive Governments for not dealing with that emergency in the correct way. The current development originated in a campaign against the Royal Ulster Constabulary that suddenly switched to one against the UDR. Now that that regiment is to be done away with, opposition to the RUC is growing, with more and more criticism of its activities, accusations that it is a sectarian force, and questions about why more Roman Catholics are not to be found in its membership. So it will go on.
Northern Ireland's unique security situation calls for a unique force such as the Ulster Defence Regiment. Only the UDR can provide the manpower to assist the RUC in its fight against terrorism. Its Deputy Chief Constable told me, "We as police could not do anything about the security situation if we did not have the assistance of the Ulster Defence Regiment. If it is disbanded, how can we train men to take its place? How could we set up an adequate security apparatus to take its place? It cannot be done."
The men who serve in the UDR could have joined other regiments that have closer associations with the Province, but they chose to join the UDR—to fight not for Ireland but for security, peace, and harmony in Ulster itself. The regiment's membership is an indication of its desire to serve for peace in that beleaguered Province.
The proposed merger will have many side effects, but the overall concern is the detrimental effect that it will have on security and on the morale of the regiment's members.
I wish to make it clear that I am not party to calling on people in Northern Ireland to leave the Ulster Defence Regiment. That is not what I advocate. I know how men feel. I am aware of how they have been treated. I know of those who were arrested and had false charges laid before them. I know that millions of pounds had to be paid to buy them new houses and to relocate them under the terms of the Stevens inquiry. Those men persevered in their membership of the UDR because they were dedicated and loyal men.
If the merger takes place, a force in which there is so much will lose its identity. Why should the regiment have to suffer in this way? If it had done something disgraceful and besmirched its good name, one would understand, but that, of course, is not the position. Even its detractors, as they come with glee to bury it, are prepared to pay fulsome eulogies to its members, the way they have served and the sacrifices that they have made.
The Government's proposals will add nothing to the overall effectiveness of the British Army's counter-terrorist role in Northern Ireland. Instead, they will detract from the implicit moral driving force that attracts men and women into the ranks of the UDR. The proposals will do nothing to improve security. Indeed, security will take a terrible hammering. That is because people are losing faith in what should be done. The enemies of our Province will be well pleased.
What of the proposed title of the regiment? Men have died because they joined the UDR. Men were murdered because they associated with them. Men were murdered even after they had done their stint and had returned to civvy street. They were killed for being British Ulster men and women. They were unprepared to swallow Irish rule. They died for the cause of Ulster, not for that of Ireland. They did not die to give an Irish dimension. They died because they chose to be part of the United Kingdom and its jurisdiction. The proposal to name the regiment the Royal Irish is a laughable attempt to grab orange with green—a vain attempt to inflict a hybrid name of Irish society upon the people of Ulster.
Why do the Government not wake up to the realities? The empire is dead and only British Ulster is British. The Irish have forsaken the Union. Why do the Government not honour those who wish to maintain the Union and are prepared to die for its preservation? They should rename the UDR the Royal Ulster Defence Regiment to give credit to those to whom credit is due.
If the Government honestly believe that calling the regiment the Irish regiment will attract support from the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Roman Catholic church, the Irish Government and the security forces, may God almighty help us. Since the announcement was made, the SDLP, the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the southern Government have not said, "Join the new

regiment that is about to be formed." That is the proof of the matter. Why do we not hear those who were the detractors of the UDR making a clear call—not an ambivalent one—in support of men and women joining the new regiment? Instead, we hear them say, "No, we shall not commit ourselves." When will they commit themselves? The answer is that they will never commit themselves to anything that is aimed at retaining and maintaining the Union.
Can the Government give a guarantee to the UDR that the merger will not result in removals, redundancies, transfers and demotions? They cannot do so, because the removals, redundancies and demotions have already begun. The thinning out process is in hand. Any officer can say to a man, "You can appear on the media, provided that you say this, but if you do not say that but say the opposite and oppose the merger, we shall take disciplinary action against you." The part-time element of the Ulster Defence Regiment is already understaffed and being phased out by natural wastage. At a time when Ulster is the victim of so many sectarian atrocities, instead of strengthening the armed forces the Government are pulling the carpet from under the feet of the UDR. If the Government continue to pursue this merger, it will have an unsettling effect on the family life of current UDR members. The Government must remember that if certain members of the UDR, for their own reasons, do not join the new merged regiment, they will still be marked men.
The tragedy is that a policy has begun to withdraw the personal weapons that members of the UDR were given with which to defend themselves when off duty. It is bad enough to have served in the security forces and therefore to be a marked man. It is bad enough to know that one's only hope of protection is one's own ability and a personal weapon. But what will happen when people find that they are no longer members of that regiment and that personal weapon is taken away from them? Is that the sort of treatment that should be handed out to men who have marked themselves out because by taking a stand and joining the regiment? They will lose both earnings and protection.
There will also be loss of employment. The Ulster Defence Regiment represents the greatest value for money in terms of security costs that the Province has ever seen or is ever likely to see. We hear every day about cuts. These continuous cuts will affect the money available to make the war effective against the enemies of Ulster. The proposals will undoubtedly set in motion the means by which the part-time element of the UDR will be reduced to a lower level than ever before in its history.
In November 1991 the ferociousness of the IRA's terrorist campaign necessitated the first call-up of those part-time men. Since November last year an emergency situation has prevailed in Northern Ireland. More troops have had to be brought into the Province. A law-abiding community has been able to say over and over again, "Thank God for our security forces, thank God for our police, and thank God for the Ulster Defence Regiment, because they have stood between us and the enemy." For some time now the British authorities have viewed part-time Ulster Defence Regiment membership as unacceptable by their career standards, but the very ethos of the UDR was to be a unique arm of the security forces in a unique situation. I can now see the demise of those part-time soldiers—not immediately, but in the long term. Their numbers are going down already.
Terrorism in Ulster can be thwarted only through the civil power of the Royal Ulster Constabulary backed up and supported by a locally recruited Ulster Defence Regiment. The auxiliary forces must be drawn from and must interlock with the Northern Ireland community. The Ulster Defence Regiment offers the best network of intelligence within the community that it serves, and the only way in which terrorism can be destroyed is through intelligence. Who better to gather intelligence and to spearhead the strength of intelligence than those who live and go in and out of the community? Who better than those who use their eyes and ears to defend themselves and who in so doing can defend others? That is all to be sacrificed. It would be more advisable for the Minister of State to appeal to every Irish Member in the House to support the security forces and to appeal directly to the Social Democratic and Labour party to support the security forces.
As I have said, the lack of Roman Catholic members in the UDR is the responsibility of the IRA, who pick them out to murder them, but it is also the responsibility of their Church and their political representatives in the SDLP.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I apologise for interrupting my colleague so early in his contribution, but this relates to the role of the Social Democratic and Labour party. Is there not a strange irony in the fact that a political party which, since its inception, has done everything possible to undermine the security forces in Northern Ireland and to withhold its support from them and which, in recent years, has withheld support from the Ulster Defence Regiment and called for its disbandment is not in its place this evening to see the dawning of the hour that it sought?

Rev. Ian Paisley: All I can say to my colleague is, when the British Government does that party's work so well for it, it does not need to be present. Even in its death throes, the House is eager to pass this mean little Bill and to add its insult to the UDR, so the SDLP does not need to be present.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The attitude of the Social Democratic and Labour party towards the Ulster Defence Regiment is of course all on record, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) says. However, is not it also on record that the SDLP is wholly opposed to the Royal Irish Rangers and that it campaigned against that regiment ever serving in Northern Ireland? As that is the SDLP's background, is not it natural that it will campaign against the new Royal Irish Regiment which is to be the successor to the Royal Irish Rangers and the UDR?

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is of course on record that the SDLP campaigned against any of the Irish regiments in the British Army serving in Northern Ireland. It insisted—indeed, dictated—what regiments should come to Northern Ireland to serve. I think that it was only under a Conservative Government that the regiments eventually came. I may be wrong about that but, certainly for a long time during the troubles, none of the regiments were permitted to come. They were not considered acceptable in Northern Ireland by the SDLP. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: indicated assent.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I see that I have the approval even of the Minister. We need the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church to say that it will support the regiment, and the SDLP to call on its people to support it. At a meeting in Downing street when the Prime Minister talked to the four leaders of the constitutional parties, as they are called, I told him that it was not true that the four leaders were one when it came to supporting the security forces. The leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party did not support the security forces. He does not call. There is a great difference between saying to one's people, "If anything happens to you, go to the police," and saying, "Join the police. Support the police by becoming a member of the police."
That is what is happening in Northern Ireland. No nationalist or republican elected politician says, "Join the police. Put your emphasis on the police by joining them." Yet I still repeatedly hear them say that we shall achieve peace only when everybody can give his allegiance to the police. There is no country in which all the people give their allegiance to the police. Those who want to break the law do not give their allegiance to the police, and the IRA will not do so—neither will those who support it.
It is a sad fact that the proposals in the Bill are before us. It is all too easy, as hon. Members hasten away to the coming election, for a number of them to wait here and vote the Bill through. But they will not reap any of its harvest. They will go to bed tonight in the comparative peace and safety of their homes on this side of the water. They know nothing of the worry of the woman on the border with her family, and the family on the border who can no longer live in their own home. At night they have to live in an outhouse, where both the father and the mother have shotguns in their hands. Hon. Members know nothing about that. The House is ignorant of what is happening in Northern Ireland—ignorant of what one sees when one goes to a farmhouse, and the wife and the father take one to the outhouse and show one the bedding on the floor and the guns stacked against the wall, and say, "That is how we have to live, because our house could be attacked at any time". Those are the people who now live in more fear, because people in those areas have looked to the Ulster Defence Regiment for their defence.
That is why I say to the Government and to every Member of the House, "Some day you will have to remember—your conscience will remind you—and you will say, 'Yes, I voted for that.'" It is easy to vote for a Bill, but what will the end product be?
The trouble with the Bill is that, in one sweep, it says:
Any person who is a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment at the commencement of this Act shall cease to be a member at that time and, if his term of service with the Regiment would have continued after that time…
he shall continue to be a member of the armed forces until the term of service current at that time expires or is otherwise brought to an end, and…
he may be transferred"—
it does not say "shall be transferred"—
to another corps in the same way as a member of the regular forces serving in a corps other than the Ulster Defence Regiment.
With one sweep, those three little paragraphs completely wipe away the whole membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment, and the regiment itself. It is the end of the road for the regiment. Would any hon. Member in similar circumstances not feel deeply aggrieved if that were the sentence of execution passed by the House? Does the


House not feel that that is bound to be intolerable to members of the regiment, especially in view of their sacrifices?
What will the end of the story be? After the debate concludes and the House divides on Third Reading, the word will go back to Northern Ireland that this is the end of the UDR. People in our Province remember the day when the House did the same with the Ulster Special Constabulary. They will have more despair in their hearts at the end of this debate than they have had for many long years. They hoped and trusted that at long last the Government and the Prime Minister would take the matter in mind. Instead, they find that once again their hopes have been dashed. Those who have served well in the UDR have got their come-uppance, which they do not deserve. They have been treated in a manner that I put on the record as disgraceful.
I cannot accept the arguments that I have been given, although I should like to accept them. It is far easier to live at peace than to live at war, and it is far easier to conform than not to conform. However, when one is elected to office, one has a responsibility to ensure that the electors give their views. Having balanced those views and found them to be absolutely honest and trustworthy, one has a duty to put those views in the place to which one has been elected. Whether the House wishes to hear them and whether that man receives scorn from the people to whom he speaks, he must say what the people have convinced him is right. Having talked to UDR officers, to UDR men, to a prominent general in the British Army and to others related to military service, I am convinced—

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does it concern my hon. Friend that, in every contact with the Minister he has said with absolute conviction—I do not doubt him for one minute —that the UDR wants the change? Does it disturb my hon. Friend that the Minister actually believes that? I can see that the Minister is not interested in listening, although he will have plenty of time later in which to listen.
Is it not disturbing that the Minister clearly believes that the UDR wants the Bill? We who come from Northern Ireland know that the UDR wants nothing to do with the Bill and that the grass roots, the men who serve on the streets and roads of Northern Ireland, want the measure defeated.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not expect the Government to listen. The only time they listen to Northern Ireland is when they are in trouble. They then run to the leaders from Northern Ireland saying, "Please help us." The hard-pressed people of Northern Ireland say, "In God's name, help us. You are not helping us tonight by what you are doing."
It is no use the Government bluffing their way and saying, "Everything will be all right." Everything will not be all right. The Minister has the evidence. I put it to him again. I see a person in the Box who was present at the meeting at which it was revealed to us that the Government had spent money on a survey—an opinion poll—which came out overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill. The Minister should now tell us when the poll took place, what money was spent on it, how many officers, NCOs and privates were questioned. What was the breakdown, and what was the result of that poll?

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend said that the poll was of the officers and men of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Was it not also of the officers and men of the Royal Irish Rangers, and did not the Minister suggest that there was a less enthusiastic response from the Royal Irish Rangers when they were asked those questions—even though the sample was clearly geared to get the best result for the opinion poll?

Mr. John. D. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley) said more than an hour ago, the future of the UDR is very important to us in Northern Ireland. My party tabled an amendment in Committee, but it was defeated by the Government. We have not had a full and proper debate at any stage in the Bill's proceedings. The debate is now getting off the ground, and many hon. Members wish to take part in it. There is a rumour that the Government are about to curtail the debate. Can we have a ruling from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how long we have available to continue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The right hon. Gentleman and the House know full well that the occupant of the Chair cannot deal with hypothetical questions. I have to deal with the situation as it proceeds.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have an assurance that the debate can continue for as long as you are satisfied that hon. Members wish to voice their opinions on Northern Ireland, and that those opinions will be heard. I was told by those in the Table Office that the debate could continue for as long as there were people who were prepared to speak. If that is not so, I should like to hear it contradicted; if it is so, I should be happy to hear you say so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can add nothing to what I have already said. As long as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley) is in order, he is entitled to proceed.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Let me take this opportunity to warn the Government not to try to gag Northern Ireland Members tonight. It does not matter to me if they curtail our proceedings; it would suit me because I have plenty of other things to do in Northern Ireland. But I can tell the Minister that, if the Government do that the people of Northern Ireland will realise the lengths to which they are prepared to go to gag Northern Ireland's public representatives and prevent us from speaking.
We do not enjoy the opportunities available to hon. Members representing seats in Wales, Scotland and England. In Great Britain, legislation is implemented by way of Bills which have stages—Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading. Our laws are passed in one and a half hours in a series of Orders in Council. It is amazing that I can move an amendment to a law affecting the people of England and Wales but that I cannot amend a law affecting those who sent me to the House. Our opportunities for debates are limited, and if we do not have a full opportunity to debate Bills that affect Northern Ireland, the people of Northern Ireland had better know that we are limited in that way. We have no forum in Northern Ireland to which we can take matters.
The House should remember that it is always dangerous to stifle debate. If debate is stifled, frustrations will break out in another way. If that is what the


Government are about, let them do it. That will be all right, but they will reap in Northern Ireland what they are sowing. This debate is open ended, but if the Government had wanted, they could have guillotined it. They thought that the matter would never be seen on the Order Paper and that it would be nodded through.
It will not be nodded through. I have already told the Minister of State that it would be better to withdraw the Bill and bring it forward again. What has he to fear? Is he not going to return to this place? If he returns, he will have the opportunity to do that. If he does not return, Labour Front-Bench Members, who are in favour of the Bill, can bring it back for him. The Minister of State can join them in a new coalition. He did not withdraw the Bill, so 1 shall continue. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will my hon. Friend say something about the consequences of this measure becoming law, in particular the lessons that will be learned by the Provisional IRA, which campaigned for the removal of the B Specials? It was successful in persuading the House to remove the B Specials because of IRA propaganda. IRA propaganda has concentrated on the Ulster Defence Regiment, and the Government have again responded to IRA propaganda. Is there a lesson that the IRA will draw from that?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes. The lesson that I have learnt is that I have to talk on and on, because I have discovered that the Government intend to move a closure motion when I sit down. That leaves me no option but to continue to speak on this matter. I deeply regret that attitude. It will have a sad reaping in my Province. The Minister of State should go the second mile on the issue. He is not even prepared to listen. He has been doing his correspondence and talking to his hon. Friends. He wants to silence the person to whom he is not prepared to listen. That is not democracy at all, it is the worst form of dictatorship.
Please, for the sake of the widows, orphans and memory of the Ulster Defence Regiment, let the House debate the matter. If nobody but Northern Ireland hon. Members want to take part in the debate, they should be heard. This is our only opportunity to debate the matter.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I am sorry to disturb the hon. Gentleman's brief remarks, but may I refer to something that he said a few moments ago? He said that other hon. Members are not aware of living under the threat of violence. We all appreciate that the threat in Northern Ireland is serious, but some hon. Members are living under the same threat. Their names have appeared on lists. Of course, hon. Members have been murdered. Two lists were discovered. One was in Limerick. It was discovered by the Garda six months ago. Other hon. Members who are not Northern Ireland Members were on that list. I remind the hon. Gentleman as gently as I can that the terror and fear are shared by many other hon. Members and their families.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know of any case on this side of the water of a family having to leave their own home at night and go into a lonely outhouse—a cowshed—and stretch out their beds, with the father bolting the door and putting two cartridges into a double-barrelled shotgun. I do not know of any part of the United Kingdom where a man goes out ploughing and his wife has to lie up against

a hedge with a gun in her hand. I know and appreciate that there is fear among people. There is fear on both sides of the Community. I am aware of that.
In my other capacity as a minister of religion, I have to visit the hospital. When I visit the Royal Victoria hospital it takes 20 police officers to get me in and out safely. One of the Ministers visited the hospital the other day. It took 200 members of the security forces to get him in and out safely. Does the House realise the continual pressure that we are all under?

Mr. John D. Taylor: It is important to clarify the issue of fear. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) limited fear to the fear among elected Members of Parliament here in Great Britain. Of course a handful of Members of Parliament in Great Britain live in fear. But that is not the issue that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was addressing. He was not worried about Members of Parliament. He was rightly worried about the fear that has spread across the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. It is the people of Northern Ireland who live in fear. Ordinary Members of Parliament here in Great Britain still do not understand what the fear is like in practice in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman is right. I must say to the House that people who go into public life in Northern Ireland take their life in their hands. We all know that. The IRA attempted to kill the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). I remember visiting him in the hospital shortly after he received all those bullets in his face. I am warned continually that I am on the danger list and could be murdered. My wife has been attacked. I have been shot at. But if one chooses to take a stand and be a public representative in Northern Ireland, no matter who one is and what one's convictions, one will always be under threat. But that is not what I seek to convey to the House about the Bill.
The ordinary people in Northern Ireland who go about their daily business, whose name is never on the front of the newspaper, who are unknown, who bring up their children, send them to school and do their best to rear them and give them a chance in life, are living in fear. It is a fear that goes across the religious divide. Protestants are afraid and Roman Catholics are afraid. The fear enters into the gut of the people. There is great fear. If the Bill is passed tonight, there will be more fear. The Bill will not lessen but build up fears.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Ulster Unionists in the House, told the Prime Minister when we met him that there was a perception that the British Government would pull out of Northern Ireland. That perception leads to fear among not only Protestants but Roman Catholics, who do not know what will happen if the Government pull out. We have a super-abundance of fear.
Some people in the House may be cynical and say that the fears are unreal, but even if they are unreal, they are real to the people who have them. We must emphasise that to the House. The House should take cognisance tonight that there are real fears in the hearts of people.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Apart from the fear of terrorism, is there not a real fear in Northern Ireland as a consequence of legislation such as this? It creates fear that a Government who introduced the Anglo-Irish Agreement moved directly at the behest of Dublin to start making


changes such as the removal of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Has my hon. Friend read the memoirs of Dr. Garrett Fitzgerald? In them it says that, during negotiations on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Dr. Fitzgerald and his colleagues pressed the Government of the United Kingdom to do away with the UDR. He says that there was less than a solemn defence of the Ulster Defence Regiment from the British Government during that time. Will the people of Northern Ireland not fear that there is a sell-out by the Conservative Government over the Ulster Defence Regiment, just as they sold out Northern Ireland over the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I must confess to my colleague that I have not read that large book—the memoirs of the Taoiseach—but I have read extracts from it, which made it clear that Garrett Fitzgerald entirely got his own way. As my hon. Friend said, he also put on record that he was amazed that representatives of the British Government did not defend the position of people in the north of Ireland and almost readily accepted his charges.
I emphasise that, when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, the whole attack was aimed at the Ulster Defence Regiment. Some hon. Members told us that the agreement would not make any difference, that the sovereignty of this country over Northern Ireland was more secure than ever before, and that the Dublin Government would have little interest. The Dublin Government has since had continual influence in Northern Ireland.
Where was this Bill born? It was not born in the hearts of the Government, but at an Anglo-Irish Conference meeting. It was born when the Dublin Government put on pressure to get rid of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
Winston Churchill said that appeasement never pays. You can appease and appease crocodiles, but eventually they will swallow you up. That is what will happen to the Government if they go on appeasing.

Mr. John D. Taylor: On the relationship of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and how that has led the Conservative party to recommend the abolition of the Ulster Defence Regiment, there is confusion in the political arena in Ulster tonight, confusion created by the British Conservative party. Although the Conservative party imposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Conservative candidates in Northern Ireland say that they are opposed to it. Although the Conservative party is promoting what are known as the Brooke inter-party talks, Conservative candidates have said that they will campaign against those talks during the election.
Can the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) at least help the Conservatives to clarify the confusion about the Ulster Defence Regiment? The Conservatives are abolishing the Ulster Defence Regiment in this House, but will Conservative candidates in Northern Ireland campaign to preserve it?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I find it amusing, because a Conservative candidate says that he will fight against me in Antrim, North. He is welcome to do so if he wants to lose £1,000 for central office. In my constituency, he says that he is against the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Why does he say that? Because he knows that he would not stand any chance of anyone listening to him if he did not say it. That is absolutely dishonest, and that man is either a pirate, or

he has the approval of central office to say something different in Northern Ireland from what is said on the mainland. That is what the issue is about.
On the Brooke talks, the leader of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland, Mr. Kennedy, says that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible for IRA murders because he called those talks. The other day, he was received at a meeting for candidates, and he met the Prime Minister at a candidates' reception. Yet when he got back to Northern Ireland, he said that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was responsible for those killings.
So far, Conservative candidates have been mute on the subject of the Ulster Defence Regiment, but after this debate they will all be saying, "We are for the Ulster Defence Regiment." Those candidates are against the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which is a child of this Government who helped to beget it. They are against the Brooke talks, which I happen to be for. It was through the honourable leader of the Unionist party and myself that these talks came about. We have been pleading with the Government to go ahead and have these talks, but the Government are against them and now they are to be against the UDR.
How can the people of Northern Ireland think that the Conservative party is serious when its candidates say that the direct opposite in Northern Ireland to what the Government say from the Front Bench here? Let us have some decency, some honesty. If a candidate—

The Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division:—

Rev. Ian Paisley: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you can help me. Does this mean that, if the Bill is passed now, the House will have no other opportunity of commenting on it? Does this bring the debate on it to an end?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am dealing with the Division on which the House is engaged. We must see what the result of the Division is.

The House having divided: Ayes 250, Noes 13.

Division No. 113]
[5.25 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Bowis, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Allason, Rupert
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Amess, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arbuthnot, James
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bright, Graham


Ashby, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Buck, Sir Antony


Baldry, Tony
Burns, Simon


Batiste, Spencer
Butler, Chris


Bellingham, Henry
Butterfill, John


Bendall, Vivian
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carrington, Matthew


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Carttiss, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Cash, William


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Boswell, Tim
Chapman, Sydney


Bottomley, Peter
Churchill, Mr


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William






Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Colvin, Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knowles, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knox, David


Cormack, Patrick
Latham, Michael


Couchman, James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Critchley, Julian
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Curry, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Day, Stephen
Lord, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Dicks, Terry
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dorrell, Stephen
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Dover, Den
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dunn, Bob
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Maclean, David


Dykes, Hugh
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Farr, Sir John
Madel, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Major, Rt Hon John


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Malins, Humfrey


Fookes, Dame Janet
Maples, John


Forman, Nigel
Marlow, Tony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forth, Eric
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


French, Douglas
Mates, Michael


Fry, Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gale, Roger
Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mitchell, Sir David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moate, Roger


Gorst, John
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Gregory, Conal
Moss, Malcolm


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Ground, Patrick
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholls, Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, Sir John
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Richard


Hawkins, Christopher
Paice, James


Hayes, Jerry
Patnick, Irvine


Hayward, Robert
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Portillo, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Price, Sir David


Hordern, Sir Peter
Raffan, Keith


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Redwood, John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Irvine, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jack, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Jackson, Robert
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Janman, Tim
Sackville, Hon Tom


Janner, Greville
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Jessel, Toby
Sayeed, Jonathan


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Michael





Sims, Roger
Trippier, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Trotter, Neville


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Speed, Keith
Walden, George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waller, Gary


Squire, Robin
Ward, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stevens, Lewis
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Watts, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wheeler, Sir John


Sumberg, David
Whitney, Ray


Summerson, Hugo
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Wilshire, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Yeo, Tim


Thorne, Neil
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thurnham, Peter



Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. David Lightbown and


Tredinnick, David
Mr. John M. Taylor.


NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Wareing, Robert N.


Flynn, Paul



Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Tellers for the Noes:


Haynes, Frank
Mr. John Taylor and


Livingstone, Ken
Mr. Peter Robinson.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 3.

Division No. 114]
[5.36 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carrington, Matthew


Allason, Rupert
Cash, William


Amess, David
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Arbuthnot, James
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chapman, Sydney


Ashby, David
Churchill, Mr


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Baldry, Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Batiste, Spencer
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cormack, Patrick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Couchman, James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Critchley, Julian


Body, Sir Richard
Curry, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Devlin, Tim


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dicks, Terry


Bowis, John
Dixon, Don


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dorrell, Stephen


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dover, Den


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dunn, Bob


Brazier, Julian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bright, Graham
Dykes, Hugh


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Farr, Sir John


Buck, Sir Antony
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burns, Simon
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Butler, Chris
Flynn, Paul


Butterfill, John
Fookes, Dame Janet


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Forman, Nigel






Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forth, Eric
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


French, Douglas
Mates, Michael


Fry, Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gale, Roger
Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mitchell, Sir David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moate, Roger


Gordon, Mildred
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gorst, John
Morrison, Sir Charles


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moss, Malcolm


Gregory, Conal
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Ground, Patrick
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholls, Patrick


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Norris, Steve


Harris, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawkins, Christopher
Page, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Paice, James


Haynes, Frank
Patnick, Irvine


Hayward, Robert
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen {Wolv' NE)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Portillo, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Price, Sir David


Hordern, Sir Peter
Raffan, Keith


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Redwood, John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Irvine, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jackson, Robert
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Janman, Tim
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Janner, Greville
Rowe, Andrew


Jessel, Toby
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shelton, Sir William


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knowles, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Knox, David
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Livingstone, Ken
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Speed, Keith


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin


Lord, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stevens, Lewis


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Maclean, David
Sumberg, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Madel, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Major, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Maples, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marlow, Tony
Thorne, Neil





Thurnham, Peter
Watts, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wells, Bowen


Tracey, Richard
Wheeler, Sir John


Tredinnick, David
Whitney, Ray


Trippler, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Trotter, Neville
Wiggin, Jerry


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wilshire, David


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wolfson, Mark


Viggers, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Walden, George
Yeo, Tim


Waller, Gary
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ward, John



Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. David Lightbown and


Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Neil Hamilton.


NOES


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Rev. Ian Pailsey and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. John David Taylor.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

INDUSTRIAL AND FREIGHT TRANSPORT

Resolved,
That the draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville]

MINES AND QUARRIES

Resolved,
That the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.—[Mr: Sackville.]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1991–92

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [12 March],
That a further sum, not exceeding £241,460,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1992, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 341.

Question agreed to.

ESTIMATES 1992–93

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [12 March],
That a further sum, not exceeding £109,478,692,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1993, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 273, 274 and 275.

Question agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the two foregoing resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. David Mellor, Mr. Francis Maude, Mr. John Maples and Mrs. Gillian Shephard.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1992 and 31st March 1993, to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 15].

Points of Order

Mr. Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The disgraceful manner in which the Government dealt with the Third Reading of the Army Bill will cause much concern throughout the House. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have consistently defended the rights of Back Benchers when you have occupied the Chair, will you please advise us—although your advice may be of little use during the course of this Parliament —whether it is in order for a Minister, having opened a debate, to interrupt in midstream the very next speaker in that debate, and not to allow right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House freedom of speech? To deal in such a shabby manner with the gross betrayal of the Ulster Defence Regiment is a disgrace to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What occurred was perfectly in order. I well understand the hon. Member's feelings, but the matter was in order, we have disposed of that business, and we cannot continue the debate now.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any precedent for what occurred today? The Government, in one move, disbanded the Ulster Defence Regiment, with only one Back Bencher being allowed to take part in the debate. Is there any precedent for such a lack of democracy within the Conservative party?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the right hon. Member is not disputing the judgment of the Chair, which is a difficult one for the Chair to have to make. The Chair is able to do so in accordance with long-established precedents, and it does not give reasons. What has happened was perfectly in order. We cannot continue the debate now.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you can help me. Is it not in accordance with the rules of the House that, before the Question is put on a closure motion, Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker must be satisfied that there has been a full and adequate debate on the topic before the House? How can there have been a full and adequate debate when Members were rising in their places who had not spoken and when Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies were denied the right to be members of the Committee that considered the various elements of the Bill?
In acting in defence of minority parties in the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, could the Chair be satisfied that there had been a full and adequate debate when only one Back-Bench Member was allowed to speak after the Minister had completed his opening remarks, that Back-Bench Member not being allowed to finish what he had to say?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member is not questioning the discretion of the Chair. I have exercised my discretion to the best of my ability, and the House has come to its decision. There is nothing further that I can add.

Mr. John D. Taylor: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are not questioning your ruling on this matter. It is [Interruption.] The problem with the Conservative party is that it wants to steamroller the people of Northern Ireland without even listening to the

voices of the Members who represent them. As I have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are not questioning your ruling. It is—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are interrupting because they are ashamed of what they have done today against the people of Northern Ireland. We are asking only whether there is a precedent for the Chair accepting a closure motion when no one from the Opposition Benches has been given the opportunity to speak in the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have said already, there is nothing further that I can add to what I have said. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for reassuring me that he was not questioning the judgment of the Chair.
I understand that the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill motion is not to be moved.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville]

Mr. Gwilym Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sought to give notice that I would raise this matter. I refer to a press release which was issued by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which I received this morning. The release announces that the decision of the Committee will be delayed untii 2 April, when there will be no Select Committee and no Chairman of it, because all of us will have been dissolved by that date, only seven days before the general election.
The possibility has been raised that a Select Committee report is being used for political purposes, when otherwise we would expect the report to be a helpful one. For the Committee to bring out a report in the teeth of an election must devalue any of its work. Surely it would have been better if the report had been published on Wednesday two days ago, when it was agreed by the Committee.
Would you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is out of order, or most inappropriate, for the report to be published on 2 April? Do you agree also that it would be much better if it were published this coming Monday with the other report that was agreed on Wednesday by the Select Committee? Secondly, will you ensure that no taxpayers' money will be spent on the press conference that is to be held at Swansea on 2 April at the same time as the report is published?
Thirdly, even if taxpayers' money is spent on holding the press conference, with the present Chairman of the Select Committee present, would you agree that it is entirely wrong for a document to be issued by the Committee Office of the House that will effectively publicise someone who will then be only a Labour candidate?

Mr. Flynn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although we do not expect the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) to return to this place, I do not think that he is going to be dissolved in the way that he suggested. His fate will be rather more pleasant than that. It is disgraceful, however, that he should suggest that the dates involved any political manipulation. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has been run in an entirely impartial, non-partisan manner by its splendid Chairman for many years, and has enjoyed the respect of Members in all parts of the House. It is wrong to end this Parliament on such a note.
This afternoon, we have witnessed an undemocratic display, when a fascinating and interesting debate in which many of us would have liked to take part was disgracefully


guillotined. An attempt is now being made to manipulate the timetable in a way that is to the benefit of the Conservative party, but nothing will help the Conservative party in Wales. It will lose several seats in Wales and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have got the drift of this point of order. This is obviously a political argument, not a point of order for the Chair. Perhaps, however, I can make two points both to the hon. Gentleman and to the House which might be helpful. First, the time when Select Committees publish reports is a matter for them. They are frequently published during a recess, so that is in order.
Secondly, it would not be in order for a member of a Select Committee to call a parliamentary press conference when Parliament is prorogued. If he did something on an individual basis, I assume that it would be as a parliamentary candidate, but it would not be in order for him to call a parliamentary press conference. We shall start the Adjournment again.

Asraam System

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment. After the last spurious point of order, we return to the serious business of the House and come to the Adjournment debate, which is very important because of its subject matter. I am grateful to the Minister of State for coming to the House this afternoon to respond in, I hope, a positive manner to my complaints and strictures. When I say "complaints and strictures", I do not mean that I am making the obvious kind of complaint that one makes when a decision such as this is made.
On 3 March, the Secretary of State announced his decision regarding the choice of the contracting parties for the advanced short-range air-to-air missile project and contract. One accepts that a choice had to be made and that there would be a winning party and a losing party. In this case, there were three applicant groups, including a foreign group. There were the two British-led clusters— one with American partners, the other with French partners. The one with French partners is of particular concern to me because of my local constituency interest. I repeat that on these occasions one has to accept that there are winners and losers. The excellent high-technology space missile defence company, GEC Marconi, with its headquarters in Stanmore—of which I, as the local Member of Parliament, and others both in that area and in the territorial zone around it are intensely proud because of its past achievements and, I hope, its considerable future achievements—has been the recipient of contracts for excellent projects from the Ministry of Defence over many years.
This was a crucial project. One can only congratulate the British Aerospace group on having won the contract. The decision was widely welcomed by other hon. Members who have local constituency interests. Most of them sit on this side of the House. Therefore, I was somewhat of a lone voice when I said that I thought that the wrong contractor had been selected. When the Secretary of State made his announcement on 3 March I said:
Of course, the equipment is essential and vital for the future defence of the realm and we are proud that missile equipment of that sort is British."—[Official Report, 3 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 167.]
I believed then, and I believe now, that the wrong contractor was selected. In my view, it is a bitter blow for GEC Marconi.
I hasten to add that these remarks are made entirely on my own initiative. People often feel that on these occasions Members of Parliament are doing some respectable, legitimate and proper lobbying on behalf of an equally legitimate outside interest—a company in their constituency—and that they have been prompted to do so by that particular company. That is certainly not the case on this occasion. Although I know the company well, have visited its headquarters many times and know its executives and staff, this is very much my own initiative and I do not wish to engage them in any commentaries that I may make on this project. These are entirely my views. I stick to them, and I welcome the opportunity of this short debate for the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to reply to the points that I shall make.
I wish to make one crucial but obvious point. As I said, a series of comments were made approving of the Secretary of State's selection. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) also welcomed the Secretary of State's decision and statement and said that it
underpins the strategy of flexibility outlined in 'Options for Change'.
However, my hon. Friend, significantly, added an important question, which perhaps stood out. He asked:
Can he assure us that Hughes, whose parent company is based in the United States, will not run into problems of technology transfer when seeking to export?"—[Official Report, 3 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 163.]
That is a crucial question which must be answered satisfactorily to reassure people.
During the post-war period there has been much American domination of such projects. We often start out believing—I see that the Minister has decided not to listen to my remarks for the moment. Perhaps I should pause while he returns to the Front Bench. It is funny to see a Minister leaving when a colleague is making a speech. I am a trifle surprised, but I shall continue now that he is returning to take an interest in the debate.
In the post-war period it has been on the weaknesses of European and British defence contracts that we thought that we were going to be an equal partner and would have full control over the development of the technology, instrumentation and equipment, especially in electronics defence projects. However, we ended up being dominated —perhaps unduly—by the Americans.
The crucial advantage of the alternative in this instance—the MICASRAAM, in which MICA represents the French missile configuration component—was that that would not be so. It was to be a European project and Matra, the French partner, was to be fully and heavily involved. It was to be a quintessentially European project, getting away from the old weakness from which United Kingdom defence projects have suffered repeatedly in the post-war period and from which they perhaps still suffer even now that European defence projects are at long last gaining greater ascendancy.
I remember many visits to the Pentagon when embarrassed senior officials of that great department in the United States would give a list of the United Kingdom's share of American defence orders. It would usually turn out to be extremely puny despite their protestations that they would do better next time. The new project for the European fighter aircraft and for our existing fighter aircraft was to get away from that.
On the day of the selection, I wrote to the Secretary of State to express my disappointment about the choice. I am still waiting for a reply to my letter, but I imagine that the Minister of State will deal with some of the points today. In order to be fair to the Government, I said that I knew of the difficulties in making such choices. There will always be one set of aggrieved parties and another set that is delighted to have won. One hopes that GEC Marconi will be the recipient in future.
In the fourth paragraph of my letter of 3 March to the Secretary of State I wrote:
I was glad to note in answer to my supplementary question"—
by the way, I fully appreciate that the Secretary of State tried very hard to be helpful in his answer in what was a difficult situation, and I pay tribute to him for that—
that you expected Marconi to be the recipient of other key government defence orders in the future.

I shall crystallise what I believe would have been the main salient advantages if the MICASRAAM alternative had been chosen as opposed to the British Aerospace ASRAAM offering. I am an outside party and probably do not have access to all the expert, behind-the-scenes figures available to people in the Department and companies involved, but, having considered the project, I believe that one advantage would have been that it was the competitive and compliant bid. It drew on the combined expertise in missile seekers of GEC Maconi and on Matra, the outstanding French group, in airframe and propulsion systems.
The bid represented value for money, too, and a low-risk development programme, bearing in mind that such equipment has often gone wrong in the past and has cost public departments of defence—including the Ministry of Defence—a lot of money when things did not quite work out. I imagine that it is always difficult to be certain about different competing specifications.
The French Government had clearly and unequivocally offered a French ministry of defence financial contribution to the development programme, and there was a strong certainty—I was about to say that there was a "likelihood", but that word is not strong enough; it was a certainty—that there would have been a French order, too, for the armée de l'air, of a size similar to that of the Royal Air Force order. That would have followed the selection of MICASRAAM rather than ASRAAM.
The Anglo-French missile configuration would have represented a significant opening up of a genuinely European defence market. Things are a little better than they have been over the previous decade, but there is still far too little in the way of a genuinely European defence equipment market, involving joint contracting efforts between the member states. There are still plenty of national efforts, but not enough joint efforts. We need to encourage that, and the MOD has missed an opportunity.
Within Europe, and elsewhere, the export prospects of MICASRAAM would have been truly outstanding. For Europe, as a centre of defence equipment excellence, to be able to sell a total weapons system with missiles and aircraft, without the danger of a United States veto—I have emphasised that risk before—would have enhanced the prospects for both MICASRAAM and the European fighter aircraft.
I stress, too, the high-technology seeker expertise that has been developed by Marconi over several decades for highly successful British Aerospace missiles, such as Skyflash, Sea Skua, Sea Eagle and Alarm. That is a crucial part of technology, upon which future national security depends. We saw the excellence of such pieces of equipment during our efforts in the Gulf, yet our equipment now runs at least a risk of being surrendered to the eventual control of the American supplier, rather than staying in British and European hands.
The expertise is crucial; that is why I am raising the matter. I am not criticising the Government severely, because of the difficult nature of such choices, and I hope that Marconi will receive many such valuable orders in future. However, as the local Member of Parliament, with those fantastic headquarters in my constituency, I worry about what may happen to the excellent outstanding team of scientists and researchers. Such a team of experts in electronics and missile technology has been built up over decades—it take time. They are highly qualified, brilliant people. Yet the original staff of 450 people has been cut to


less than half that number as a result of the inevitable redundancies that, sadly, the firm has recently had to make. I am acutely concerned to preserve that highly skilled executive work force of scientists and technicians at Stanmore to ensure that it remains intact for employment and—

Mr. David Evans: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is well known for his European views, seems to be speaking on behalf of the Commission, rather than on behalf of his constituents. Some of us believe in competitive tendering and in the freedom and fairness of choice. Some of us actually believe in Anglo-American relationships, and we are not so keen on the frogs. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) and of the people of Welwyn and Hatfield and we welcome the fact that the Ministry of Defence has given the order to that great manufacturing company, British Aerospace. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would pay more attention to British interests and less attention to the French.

Mr. Dykes: I knew that it was a serious mistake to give way to my hon. Friend—as I call him, although he called me an hon. Gentleman. Presumably, the fact that Luton Town football club has had difficulty getting into Europe has led him to sound off in his characteristic way.
Ignoring that contribution totally, and returning to my speech, I was describing the essential anxiety of a local Member of Parliament. To express that anxiety is my job on such occasions. Who would have thought a few years ago that in an area such as Stanmore or Hertfordshire we would be worried about unemployment developing into a serious and durable problem among highly skilled people as well as among what would be described as ordinary applicants for work? It is serious when highly skilled teams are reduced in size. It affects adversely our ability to compete in projects for national orders and for international orders. Where do those people go? Do some of them go abroad because they cannot get jobs here? The technology, expertise and skills of those brilliant scientists and technicians will be lost to this country for ever unless the Government have regard to those matters.
Would anyone have believed a year or two ago that the specialist design team at Stanmore would be cut from about 450 graduate engineers to just under half that number? If that project had been selected instead of the other, which was widely welcomed by my hon. Friends because of the location of the plants that would benefit from the British Aerospace alternative, employment from the project would probably have been greater than under the British Aerospace alternative. The greater number of MICASRAAM's export potential effects in different countries—I believe that some countries were already expressing considerable interest in the possibility, subject to the development configuration and success—would have provided greater employment.
Some 400 or 500 jobs at headquarters alone would have resulted from the project going to GEC Marconi. If the Minister, in return, can reassure me that GEC Marconi will receive other orders which will make up for this danger of loss of employment, value and money, my concerns will

be partly allayed. However, I am sure that he understands fully the reasons why I raised this serious problem on the Adjournment today.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for giving me the moment that I relish to answer him in this last Adjournment debate on the last full day of the last Parliament in which I shall attend the House. The hon. Gentleman said that he would not labour me with strictures. Had he done so, it would not have been the first time. He and I have a particular personal relationship—I use the word "relationship" in its archaic form. In the course of my almost nine years in Government and three Departments—

Mr. Dykes: Are you going to answer the debate?

Mr. Clark: That is exactly what I intend to develop. I admit that I have had idiosyncratic, some would say tendentious, moments of behaviour which have always been treated with great tolerance by the House. Although there have been calls for my resignation, they have largely been jocular.
I recall the hon. Member for Harrow, East exhibiting an altogether higher level of commitment. He did not invite me to resign—he actually said that I should be sacked, and to make his feelings absolutely clear, he called on the Prime Minister to sack me. To ensure that his views would be widely disseminated, he expressed that view not in a letter, as I might reasonably have expected, nor even in the Chamber, but full-frontally before the television cameras. I am sorry to say, as testified by my presence here today, that despite being so widely publicised, the call fell on deaf ears.
It is unusual—indeed, I have no recollection of its occurring before—for an hon. Member of one party to call for the dismissal of a colleague who has ministerial office in the same party, except in the Tea Room where, as we know, it happens all the time. I am glad to answer the hon. Gentleman's debate. I might have thought that his insistence that I be dismissed from the Government suggested a certain lack of confidence, and I suggested through the usual channels that he might prefer another Minister to answer the debate. However, the hon. Gentleman insisted that I answer it. I infer from that that I have regained his confidence.
The requirement for a new advanced air-to-air missile dates back to the early 1980s when the strategic environment was very different. While the monolithic threat in Europe has receded, however, regional tensions remain which could affect us. In terms of specific systems, the most potent threat comes from the MIG 29 and SU-27 aircraft, and the highly capable air-to-air missile known as Archer. I must emphasise that these weapon systems are not confined to the former Soviet Union; they have already been widely exported and further proliferation is likely in the future.
Our overwhelming success in the Gulf conflict was the result of the early establishment of air supremacy. Clearly, we must continue to maintain our superiority in air defence to protect the United Kingdom itself and British forces operating elsewhere.
Our original intention was to procure the missile in collaboration with our NATO allies. Under the family of


weapons memorandum of understanding signed in 1980, the United States was to develop an advanced medium-range air-to-air missile, and the United Kingdom and Germany a short-range system. France took observer status only and did not participate in either programme. Later, Norway and Canada joined Germany and the United Kingdom in the short-range programme. Both programmes experienced the difficulties and delays so often inseparable from collaborative projects. Eventually in 1989 and 1990, our partners withdrew from the project.
The withdrawals led to reassessment of our own position. The threat was re-examined, and the operational requirement found still to be valid. In the absence of collaborative partners to share the burden of development costs, however, I decided that we should follow our standard procurement procedures and hold a competition. British Aerospace Dynamics was the United Kingdom industrial leader in the former collaborative procurement, and naturally could be expected to put forward the ASRAAM missile which was to have been procured collaboratively. We were also aware that GEC Marconi, in association with Matra, would wish to offer a derivative of the short-range variant of the French MICA.
The competition was successful in attracting bids of systems to meet the requirement, and a lower-cost, lower-capability system offered by the German company Bodenseewerk Geratetechnik or BGT. Two United States companies expressed interest, but in the event neither submitted a bid.
After careful examination of the BGT offer, including mathematical modelling, we decided that the improvement that it offered over the most sophisticated hostile system was not decisive and could not justify the expenditure. But I am grateful to BGT for its bid, and I repeat that it was given the most serious consideration.
As for the BAe and GEC Marconi bids, although their systems adopted different technical solutions to the problems, each was broadly compliant with the operational requirement. In addition, we took into account three other factors.
We attached much importance to having a contract with taut terms and conditions which placed the risk with industry rather than with my Department. We therefore paid close attention to compliance with our contractual requirements. Price was obviously of great importance, but the competitiveness of a price depends very much on the terms and conditions associated with it.
The prospect of export sales was also a factor taken into account, and this aspect was of interest to many hon. Members on both sides of the House last week. Both companies were optimistic about achieving export sales in different markets. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as he said, has been in contact with the United States Secretary for Defence in relation to export sales of the ASRAAM, which uses the United States designed seeker. I am pleased to say that we received a satisfactory letter of assurance from him.
Finally we quite properly took account of the prospects for jobs in the United Kingdom, and I pay tribute to the insistent and persuasive advocacy of my hon. Friends the Members for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) in that regard. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, also took a keen interest in the progress of the project. British Aerospace pointed to more

than 80 per cent. of the work in total being carried out in the United Kingdom and claimed that the jobs of some 7,000 people would be secured. The GEC Marconi offer, on its own figures, would have led to a lower proportion of work being done in the United Kingdom, even when potential sales to a third party were taken into account.
Of course, I recognise that jobs in the United Kingdom is not a concept which has much significance for the hon. Gentleman. He has long since ceased to consider, still less to welcome, the concept of the United Kingdom as a national identity of its own. His loyalty, as we know, is to the European Community, if not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) said, to the European Commission. And so a "job" anywhere in the Community will, of course, be of equivalent value to him.
Our assessment of all those factors pointed to British Aerospace as the winner. The assessment was supported, as in all major investment decisions in the public sector, by a formal investment appraisal. That also pointed to British Aerospace as the clear winner of the competition.
In every competition, of course, there must be losers. It would be wrong for me to disclose the grounds on which the GEC Marconi bid fell short of our needs, as the information in its offer was submitted to us in confidence purely for bid assessment purposes. I understand that GEC has asked for a briefing on the reasons why it was not not selected, and I hope that it will take full advantage of the opportunity. I must say, however, that my hon. Friend is, at best, premature in his criticism of the decision.

Mr. Skinner: Friend?

Mr. Clark: At that moment.
GEC Marconi will have a much clearer understanding of the factors that we took into account once it has received the briefing next Tuesday. I hope that it will enable it to improve its prospects in future competitions for defence requirements.
As for my hon. Friend's concern for his constituents in Stanmore, I can assure him that GEC Marconi is highly valued by my Department as a major defence contractor which has made a significant contribution to a range of defence projects. We have some 150 contracts, worth more than £2 million each, with GEC Marconi Stanmore, with a total current value of approximately £3·3 billion.
In addition, on 20 January I announced that a consortium led by GEC Marconi had been chosen to develop the defensive aids sub-system for EFA. That contract is due to be placed very shortly and it will be worth more than £100 million. Much of the work will be undertaken at GEC Marconi Stanmore, where some 200 jobs will be created. Taking the GEC group as a whole, since the beginning of last year orders worth more than £2 billion have been placed either directly with GEC companies or with those companies acting as major sub-contractors.
All potential defence contractors need to show that their proposals represent cost-effective use of public funds. The best way to do that is through competition, which not only ensures keen prices but offers a vehicle for original and innovative technical solutions. We were fortunate in the competition to have three European bids, two of them British-led. It is a tribute to British industry that both those bids were enterprising and professionally presented.
I am confident that ASRAAM will be a successful programme, and that it will make a vital contribution to the defence of the United Kingdom well into the next century.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Six o'clock.